NEW  GUIDES  TO  OLD  MASTERS 

By  John  C.  Van  Dyke 

PRICE 

I.  London — National  Gallery,  Wallace  Collection. 
With  a  General  Introduction  and  Bibliog- 
raphy for  the  Series net  %1. 00 

II.     Paris — Louvre        .      .      .      , net      .75 

III.  Amsterdam — Rijks  Museum ") 

The  Hague — Royal  Gallery    >  bound  together  .  ne<      .75 
Haarlem — Hals  Museum       3 

IV.  Brussels — Royal  Museum     ") ,         ,  ,       ,,  .       __ 

.   ,  ^       ,  ^r  > bound  together  .  net      .75 

Antwerp — Royal  Museum     ) 

V.     Munich— Old  Pinacothek      "^ 

Frankfort — Staedel  Institute  >  bound  together  .  net    1.00 

Cassel — Royal  Gallery  ) 

VI.     Berlin — Kaiser-Friedrich       ^ 

Museum  >boimd  together  .  net    1.00 

Dresden — Royal  Gallery        ) 

VII.     Vienna — Imperial  Gallery    '\ 

Budapest — Museum  of  Fine  >  bound  together  .  net    1.00 

Arts  ) 

VIII.     St.  Petersburg — Hermitage In  Press 

IX.     Vmice-Academy  |  bound  together  .    In  Press 

Milan — Brera,  Poldi-Pezzoli ) 

X.     Florence — Ufflzi,  Pitti,  Academy      .      .      ,      .    In  Press 

XI.     Rome — Vatican,  Borghese  Gallery   ....    In  Press 

XII.     Madrid— Prado In  Press 


RIJKS  MUSEUM 


THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 


HALS  MUSEUM 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2007  witin  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/amsterdamliaguehaOOvandrich 


Photograph  by  Hanfstaengl,  Munich 


DE  hooch:     the  buttery 
The  Rijks  Museum,  Amsterdam 


NEW     GUIDES      TO     OLD     MASTERS 

AMSTERDAM, 
THE    HAGUE,   HAARLEM 

CRITICAL  NOTES  ON  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM, 
THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM,  HALS  MUSEUM 


BY 
JOHN  C.  VAN  DYKE 

AUTHOB  OF  "aBT  FOB  ABT's  SAKE,"   "THE  MEANING  OF  PICTDBE8,' 

"HISTOBY  OF  PAINTING,"   "OLD  DUTCH  AHD 

FLEMISH  MASTEB8,"  ETC. 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S   SONS 

1914 


V3 


Copyright,  1914,  by 
CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


Published  April,  1914 


7/f 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

There  are  numerous  guide-books,  catalogues,  and 
histories  of  the  European  galleries,  but,  unfortunately 
for  the  gallery  visitor,  they  are  either  wholly  descrip- 
tive of  obvious  facts  or  they  are  historical  and  ar- 
chaeological about  matters  somewhat  removed  from  art 
itself.  In  them  the  gist  of  a  picture — its  value  or  mean- 
ing as  art — is  usually  passed  over  in  silence.  It  seems 
that  there  is  some  need  of  a  guide  that  shall  say  less 
about  the  well-worn  saints  and  more  about  the  man 
behind  the  paint-brush;  that  shall  deal  with  pictures 
from  the  painter's  point  of  view,  rather  than  that  of 
the  ecclesiastic,  the  archaeologist,  or  the  literary  ro- 
mancer; that  shall  have  some  sense  of  proportion  in 
the  selection  and  criticism  of  pictures;  that  shall  have 
a  critical  basis  for  discrimination  between  the  good  and 
the  bad;  and  that  shall,  for  these  reasons,  be  of  ser- 
vice to  the  travelling  public  as  well  as  to  the  art  student. 

This  series  of  guide-books  attempts  to  meet  these 
requirements.  They  deal  only  with  the  so-called  "old 
masters.''  When  the  old  masters  came  upon  the 
scene,  flourished,  and  ceased  to  exist  may  be  deter- 
mined by  their  spirit  as  well  as  by  their  dates.  In 
Italy  the  tradition  of  the  craft  had  been  established 
before  Giotto  and  was  carried  on  by  Benozzo,  Botti- 


393593 


vi  PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

celli,  Raphael,  Titian,  Tintoretto,  even  down  to  Tie- 
polo  in  the  eighteenth  century.  But  the  late  men, 
the  men  of  the  Decadence,  are  not  mentioned  here 
because  of  their  exaggerated  sentiment,  their  inferior 
workmanship — in  short,  the  decay  of  the  tradition  of 
the  craft.  In  France  the  fifteenth-century  primitives 
are  considered,  and  also  the  sixteenth-century  men, 
including  Claude  and  Poussin;  but  the  work  of  the 
Rigauds,  Mignards,  Coypels,  Watteaus,  and  Bouchers 
seems  of  a  distinctly  modern  spirit  and  does  not  be- 
long here.  This  is  equally  true  of  all  English  painting 
from  Hogarth  to  the  present  time.  In  Spain  we  stop 
with  the  School  of  Velasquez,  in  Germany  and  the 
Low  Countries  with  the  seventeenth-century  men. 
The  modern  painters,  down  to  the  present  day,  so  far 
as  they  are  found  in  the  public  galleries  of  Europe, 
will  perhaps  form  a  separate  guide-book,  which  by  its 
very  limitation  to  modern  painting  can  be  better 
treated  by  itself. 

Only  the  best  pictures  among  the  old  masters  are 
chosen  for  comment.  This  does  not  mean,  however, 
that  only  the  great  masterpieces  have  been  considered. 
There  are,  for  instance,  notes  upon  some  three  hun- 
dred pictures  in  the  Venice  Academy,  upon  five  hun- 
dred in  the  Uffizi  Gallery,  and  some  six  hundred  in 
the  Louvre  or  the  National  Gallery,  London.  Other 
galleries  are  treated  in  the  same  proportion.  But  it 
has  not  been  thought  worth  while  to  delve  deeply  into 
the  paternity  of  pictures  by  third-rate  primitives  or 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES  vii 

to  give  space  to  mediocre  or  ruined  examples  by  even 
celebrated  painters.  The  merits  that  now  exist  in  a 
canvas,  and  can  be  seen  by  any  intelligent  observer, 
are  the  features  insisted  upon  herein. 

In  giving  the  relative  rank  of  pictures,  a  system  of 
starring  has  been  followed. 

Mention  without  a  star  indicates  a  picture  of  merit, 
otherwise  it  would  not  have  been  selected  from  the 
given  collection  at  all. 

One  star  (*)  means  a  picture  of  more  than  average 
importance,  whether  it  be  by  a  great  or  by  a  medi- 
ocre painter. 

Two  stars  (**)  indicates  a  work  of  high  rank  as  art, 
quite  regardless  of  its  painter's  name,  and  may  be  given 
to  a  picture  attributed  to  a  school  or  by  a  painter  un- 
known. 

Three  stars  (***)  signifies  a  great  masterpiece. 

The  length  of  each  note  and  its  general  tenor  will  in 
most  cases  suggest  the  relative  importance  of  the  picture. 

Catalogues  of  the  galleries  should  be  used  in  con- 
nection with  these  guide-books,  for  they  contain  much 
information  not  repeated  here.  The  gallery  catalogues 
are  usually  arranged  alphabetically  under  the  painters' 
names,  although  there  are  some  of  them  that  make 
reference  by  school,  or  room,  or  number,  according  to 
the  hanging  of  the  pictures  in  the  gallery.  But  the 
place  where  the  picture  may  be  hung  is  constantly 
shifting;  its  number,  too,  may  be  subject  to  alteration 
with  each  new  edition  of  the  catalogue;  but  its  painter's 


viii  PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

name  is  perhaps  less  liable  to  change.  An  arrangement, 
therefore,  by  the  painters'  names  placed  alphabetically 
has  been  necessarily  adopted  in  these  guide-books. 
Usually  the  prefixes  "de,"  "di,"  "van/'  and  "von" 
have  been  disregarded  in  the  arrangement  of  the  names. 
And  usually,  also,  the  more  familiar  name  of  the  artist 
is  used — that  is,  Botticelli,  not  Filipepi;  Correggio,  not 
Allegri;  Tintoretto,  not  Robusti.  In  practical  use  the 
student  can  ascertain  from  the  picture-frame  the  name 
of  the  painter  and  turn  to  it  alphabetically  in  this  guide- 
book. In  case  the  name  has  been  recently  changed, 
he  can  take  the  number  from  the  frame  and,  by  turning 
to  the  numerical  index  at  the  end  of  each  volume,  can 
ascertain  the  former  name  and  thus  the  alphabetical 
place  of  the  note  about  that  particular  picture. 

The  picture  appears  under  the  name  or  attribution 
given  in  the  catalogue.  If  there  is  no  catalogue,  then 
the  name  on  the  frame  is  taken.  But  that  does  not 
necessarily  mean  that  the  name  or  attribution  is 
accepted  in  the  notes.  Differences  of  view  are  given 
very  frequently.  It  is  important  that  we  should  know 
the  painter  of  the  picture  before  us.  The  question  of 
attribution  is  very  much  in  the  air  to-day,  and  consider- 
able space  is  devoted  to  it  not  only  in  the  General  In- 
troduction but  in  the  notes  themselves.  Occasionally, 
however,  the  whole  question  of  authorship  is  passed 
over  in  favour  of  the  beauty  of  the  picture  itself.  It 
is  always  the  art  of  the  picture  we  are  seeking,  more 
than  its  name,  or  pedigree,  or  commercial  value. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES  ix 

Conciseness  herein  has  been  a  necessity.  These 
notes  are  suggestions  for  study  or  thought  rather  than 
complete  statements  about  the  pictures.  Even  the 
matter  of  an  attribution  is  often  dismissed  in  a  sentence 
though  it  may  have  been  thought  over  for  weeks. 
If  the  student  would  go  to  the  bottom  of  things  he 
must  read  further  and  do  some  investigating  on  his 
own  account.  The  lives  of  the  painters,  the  history  of 
the  schools,  the  opinions  of  the  connoisseurs  may  be 
read  elsewhere.  A  bibliography,  in  the  London  vol- 
ume, will  suggest  the  best  among  the  available  books 
in  both  history  and  criticism. 

The  proper  test  of  a  guide-book  is  its  use.  These 
notes  were  written  in  the  galleries  and  before  the  pic- 
tures. I  have  not  trusted  my  memory  about  them,  nor 
shall  I  trust  the  memory  of  that  man  who,  from  his 
easy  chair,  declares  he  knows  the  pictures  by  heart. 
The  opinions  and  conclusions  herein  have  not  been 
lightly  arrived  at.  Indeed,  they  are  the  result  of  more 
than  thirty  years*  study  of  the  European  galleries. 
That  they  are  often  diametrically  opposed  to  current 
views  and  beliefs  should  not  be  cause  for  dismissing 
them  from  consideration.  Examine  the  pictures,  guide- 
book in  hand.  That  is  the  test  to  which  I  submit  and 
which  I  exact. 

Yet  with  this  insistence  made,  one  must  still  feel 
apologetic  or  at  least  sceptical  about  results.  However 
accurate  one  would  be  as  to  fact,  it  is  obviously  impos- 
sible to  handle  so  many  titles,  names,  and  numbers 


X  PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

without  an  occasional  failure  of  the  eye  or  a  slip  of  the 
pen;  and  however  frankly  fair  in  criticism  one  may 
fancy  himself,  it  is  again  impossible  to  formulate  judg- 
ments on,  say,  ten  thousand  pictures  without  here  and 
there  committing  blunders.  These  difficulties  may  be 
obviated  in  future  editions.  If  opinions  herein  are 
found  to  be  wrong,  they  will  be  edited  out  of  the  work 
just  as  quickly  as  errors  of  fact.  The  reach  is  toward 
a  reliable  guide  though  the  grasp  may  fall  short  of  full 
attainment. 

It  remains  to  be  said  that  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  and 
Mrs.  George  B.  McClellan  for  helpful  suggestions  re- 
garding this  series,  and  to  Mr.  Sydney  Philip  Noe  not 
only  for  good  counsel  but  for  practical  assistance  in 
copying  manuscript  and  reading  proof. 

John  C.  Van  Dyke. 

Rutgers  College,  1914, 


THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 


NOTE  ON  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

The  Rijks  Museum  at  Amsterdam  contains  the  most 
considerable  collection  of  Dutch  pictures  in  the  Neth- 
erlands, or  for  that  matter  in  the  world.  Dutch  art 
cannot  be  comprehended  in  whole  or  in  part  without 
reference  to  this  gallery.  Aside  from  the  masterpieces, 
there  are  here  many  examples  of  the  Little  Dutchmen 
and  many  pictures  by  painters  who  are  not  seen  at  all 
in  other  galleries.  The  pictures  are  also  very  important 
for  the  history  of  the  Dutch  people.  Aside  from  court, 
town,  and  country  life  as  depicted  by  the  Steens,  Os- 
tades,  De  Hoochs,  and  Terborchs,  there  is  here  a  great 
gathering  of  regent  and  shooting-company  pictures,  of 
historical  portraits,  of  battle-pieces  on  sea  and  land,  of 
pictorial  documents  illustrative  of  Dutch  history.  The 
story  of  Holland  is  on  the  walls  of  the  Museum. 

But,  of  course,  the  visitor  asks  for  the  masterpieces 
of  art  rather  than  those  of  history.  The  Rijks  Museum 
responds  with  some  famous  names  and  pictures.  First 
of  all  there  is  the  great  Night  Watch  of  Rembrandt, 
with  a  room  and  an  attendant  to  itself,  and  always 
several  rows  of  tourists  for  an  audience.  It  is  perhaps 
the  best  known  of  all  the  Dutch  pictures.  Besides 
this  there  are  three  other  excellent  Rembrandts — the 
early  Elizabeth  Bas  portrait,  the  late  Jewish  Bride,  and 

3 


4.    .      .  NOTE  .ON.THEEIJKS  MUSEUM 

the  Five  Syndics.  By  his  pupils,  Flinck,  Bol,  and 
Eeckhout,  there  are  some  fairly  representative  examples, 
as  also  by  his  predecessor,  Frans  Hals,  who  appears 
well  in  the  Jolly  Toper.  De  Keyser  and  Mierevelt  are 
seen  in  many  single  portraits,  Elias  in  regent  groups. 
Van  der  Heist  in  several  shooting-company  pictures  of 
marked  interest  and  excellence.  Of  the  other  Dutch 
painters  of  extended  fame,  Pieter  de  Hooch  is  seen  at 
his  best  in  the  Buttery;  Terborch  is  finely  shown  in 
some  small  portraits ;  Steen  is  represented  by  examples 
both  good  and  bad,  as  is  also  Vermeer  of  Delft,  while 
there  are  many  pictures  by  Paul  Potter,  the  Ruisdaels, 
Hobbema,  and  Everdingen.  One  fine  example  of 
Heemskerck,  the  Sibyl,  several  remarkable  pictures  by 
Scorel,  some  figure  pieces  by  Geertgen  tot  St.  Jans 
should  be  mentioned  among  the  unusual  and  notable 
pictures  of  the  gallery. 

The  collection  is  practically  made  up  of  Dutch  pic- 
tures. There  are  some  early  Flemings,  and  a  few 
Italians,  but  they  "just  happened'*  in  this  gallery, 
and  seem  as  strangely  out  of  place  as  might  pictures 
from  Spain  or  Portugal.  The  nucleus  of  the  collec- 
tion was  the  various  pictures  from  the  palaces  of 
William  V,  which  were  brought  together  in  Amster- 
dam in  1808,  under  the  King,  Louis  Bonaparte.  The 
growth  has  been  gradual  and  largely  by  gift  of  private 
collections,  made  up  of  Dutch  pictures — such  collec- 
tions, for  instance,  as  the  Van  de  Poll  and  the  Van 
der  Hoop.    Besides  these  there  have  been  of  recent 


NOTE  ON  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM  5 

years  many  additions  by  purchase.  To-day  the  collec- 
tion numbers  over  twenty-five  hundred  pictures  and  is 
still  growing. 

The  building  is  large,  commodious,  but  perhaps  over- 
filled with  material.  There  is  always  the  feeling  of  too 
many  things  crowded  and  pushed  into  place.  As  for 
the  lighting,  it  is  not  very  good,  and  on  dark  days  some 
of  the  pictures  are  seen  largely  by  faith.  The  hanging 
is  occasionally  disconcerting,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the 
gallery  has  been  embarrassed  by  gifts  of  pictures  en  bloc, 
which  the  donors  have  stipulated  should  be  hung  to- 
gether. This  causes  some  confusion  and  places  many 
questionable  pictures  upon  the  walls.  The  student  will 
have  to  make  his  way  through  them,  or  past  them,  as 
best  he  can.  The  gallery  is  worthy  of  very  careful  study, 
and  the  student  should  not  be  discouraged  because  it 
is  not  ideal  in  arrangement. 

The  catalogue,  illustrated  and  translated  into  En- 
glish, is  candid,  usually  accurate,  and  decidedly  helpful. 
Photographs  of  the  pictures  can  be  had  at  the  entrance 
to  the  gallery,  and  there  is  a  cheap  reproduction  of 
many  of  them,  in  book  form,  published  by  Hanfstaengl. 
The  churches  of  Amsterdam  have  little  worth  seeing, 
but  permission  should  be  obtained  to  visit  the  Six  Col- 
lection, which  has  a  few  excellent  pictures. 


RIJKS  MUSEUM,  AMSTERDAM 

5.  Aertsen,  Pieter.  The  Egg  Dance.  The  com- 
position lacks  in  centralised  grouping,  and  has  no 
great  unity.  The  figures  are  somewhat  huddled, 
but  the  drawing  of  the  individual  types  is  strong. 
There  is  no  grace  or  charm  of  touch  about  the 
painter's  brush,  but  he  has  power  in  his  realism. 
The  picture  of  the  Adoration  (No.  7)  is  a  better 
example  of  his  strength. 

6.  The  Adoration  of  the  Shepherds.  A  frag- 
ment, supposed  to  be  part  of  a  triptych  of  the 
Nativity  painted  for  the  New  Church  of  Amster- 
dam. It  has  the  Aertsen  strength  and  brutal 
truth  in  both  man  and  beast.  Formerly  attrib- 
uted to  Rubens. 

7.    Adoration   of  the    Wise  Men.     There   is   grip 

*  and  force  in  it  that  makes  for  virile  art.  The  draw- 
ing and  painting  are  vigorous  to  the  last  degree. 
Notice  the  man  and  woman  below.  The  face  of 
this  panel,  showing  the  Presentation  in  the  Tem- 
ple, is  less  interesting,  being  somewhat  unhappily 
arranged  in  the  figures  and  scattered  in  the  colour. 
See  also  No.  7a,  a  somewhat  injured  panel. 

367.    Antolines,    Jose.      Coronation    of   the  Madonna. 

It  is  better  than  the  Murillo  near  it — better  both 
in  drawing  and  in  colour.  Moreover,  it  has  life 
and  force  to  it  without  being  a  strong  or  vigorous 

7 


8  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

work.  It  is  helped  by  the  inevitable  contrast  with 
Murillo. 

382.  Asselyn,  Jan.  The  Enraged  Swan.  A  mad  swan 
surmounted  by  a  wild  cloud,  with  floating  feathers 
on  air  and  water  to  rival  the  celebrated  Floating 
Feather  picture  by  Hondecoeter  in  the  next  room. 
It  is  not  badly  painted.  The  lettering  on  the  eggs 
at  the  right,  and  on  the  water,  was  put  there  after- 
ward to  enforce  some  sort  of  political  allegory. 
The  picture  was  evidently  not  at  that  time  con- 
sidered serious  art. 

417.  Bakhuysen,  Ludolf .  View  of  the  Building  Yard 
of  the  Admiralty,  Amsterdam.  A  very  superior 
Bakhuysen,  with  good  colour  and  a  fine  sky.  The 
light-and-shade  is  also  exceptionally  well  handled, 
and  the  painting  is  facile. 

468.    Berchem,    Claes    Pieterz.     Italian    Landscape. 

A  good  example  of  Berchem,  who,  in  spite  of 
Dutch  birth  and  training,  was  influenced  by  the 
late  Italian  and  early  French  landscape  painters. 
The  colour  here  is  warm,  the  atmosphere  quite 
good;  and  there  is  considerable  knowledge  of  moun- 
tain forms,  and  some  rather  good  rock  drawing. 

493.   Beresteyn,  Claes  van.    Road  in  the  Dunes.    A 

fine  little  landscape,  good  in  light  and  air — good 
enough  to  have  the  false  signature  of  Ruysdael 
upon  it. 

657.    Beuckelaer,  Joachim.    A  Well-Stocked  Kitchen. 

*  The  scene  at  the  back,  as  in  many  Beuckelaers, 
merely  offers  a  title  for  a  picture  that  is  really  a 
study  of  still-life.  A  strong  and  fine  piece  of 
painting,  interesting  almost  solely  on  account  of 
its  painting  rather  than  its  subject.     The  people 


BOL,  FERDINAND  9 

at  the  left  are  painted  in  the  same  way,  in  the  same 
spirit,  as  the  dead  chickens  they  hold.  The  heads, 
hands,  arms,  legs  are  all  well  drawn,  and  the  heads 
mean  no  more  than  the  legs  or  hands.  The  painter 
did  not  intend  them  for  intellectual  creations. 
This  is  painting  for  painting's  sake,  pure  and 
simple,  and  colour  for  decoration's  sake,  pure  and 
simple.  Compare  it  with  No.  2091,  attributed  to 
Ryck.     The  Beuckelaer  is  the  better. 

514.    Bisschop,  Cornells.     The  Apple-Peeler,    By  no 

means  a  poorly  painted  interior.  There  is  nothing 
inspired  about  its  colour  or  light  or  handling  or 
thinking;  but  it  is  well  drawn,  has  good  atmosphere, 
and  the  painting  of  the  dress  is  acceptable.  The 
surface  is  now  greyed. 

522.  Bles,  Herri  met  de.  Paradise.  With  a  round 
world  and  an  ocean  about  it.  A  delightful  little 
landscape  of  the  Patinir  variety,  with  nicely  drawn 
figures  of  miniature  proportions.  It  is  not  like 
pictures  elsewhere  put  down  to  this  master  save 
at  Vienna,  where  he  is  practically  the  same  as 
Patinir.  Bles  is  at  present  merely  a  hook  upon 
which  all  sorts  of  pictures  are  hung.  He  is  confused 
with  Patinir,  Bosch,  and  several  painters  of  name 
unknown. 

552.  Bol,  Ferdinand.  Abraham  Receiving  the  Visit 
of  Angels.  The  angel  at  the  right  is  the  same  model 
that  Bol  used  in  his  Jacob  Wresthng  with  the 
Angel  (No.  828)  in  the  Berlin  Gallery,  there 
ascribed  to  Rembrandt.  Again  this  model  ap- 
pears in  an  Ideal  Portrait  of  a  Young  Man,  by 
Bol  (No.  809a),  in  the  Berlin  Gallery.  For  other 
Bol  models  m  other  Rembrandts,  see  the  Hague 
note  on  Rembrandt  (No.  560).     This  picture  has 


10  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

small  value  as  art,  and  is  referred  to  merely  to 
suggest  the  origin  of  the  so-called  Rembrandt  at 
Berlin. 

540.    Six    Governors    with    the    Doorkeeper    of    the 

Huiszittenhuis.  A  portrait  group  of  considerable 
strength  for  Bol.  Observe  the  hands  on  the 
table  and  the  face  at  the  far  left. 

567.  Bor,  Paulus.  Finding  of  Moses.  A  picture  of 
*  much  charm  and  technical  excellence,  with  an  un- 
usual landscape.  The  diagonal  composition  throws 
the  light  figures  on  a  dark  ground,  making  a  strong 
contrast.  The  figures  are  well  drawn  and  distinctly 
impressive  in  mass  and  weight.  The  faces  are 
heavy,  but  full  of  charm,  the  handling  easy  and 
effective,  the  colour  fine.  Nor  is  the  landscape  to 
be  despised.  Look  at  the  lake  and  sky.  The 
backs  and  faces  of  the  women  are  somewhat  cleaned. 
A  comparatively  unknown  painter,  but  of  consider- 
able ability,  as  regards  this  picture  at  least.  The 
same  painter  did  No.  377  at  the  Haarlem  Museum 
(put  among  the  unknown  masters),  but  it  is  not  so 
good  as  the  picture  here. 

587.    Bosch,    Jerome    van    Aeken.     An    Operation. 

The  attribution  may  be  correct,  but  the  picture, 
whether  by  Bosch  or  not,  has  no  great  merit. 
The  colour  is  pallid,  the  landscape  formal,  the  draw- 
ing poor.  It  has  the  owl  sign  of  Herri  met  de 
Bles  at  top,  but  the  owl  was  also  used  by  Bosch. 
See  notes  on  Bles  in  the  Vienna  Gallery. 

597.  Both,  Jan.  Popular  Life  in  Rome.  With  a  view 
of  the  Colosseum  in  the  distance.  A  Dutch  view 
of  Italian  life.  The  figures  are  probably  by  Andries 
Both,  as  the  catalogue  points  out.  The  air  and 
light  rather  warm,  but  effective. 


CLEVE,  JUSTE  VAN  11 

591.    Artists  Studying  from  Nature.     A  very  large 

Italian  landscape,  well  composed  and  held  together, 
considering  its  size.  The  colouring  is  hot,  but  not 
wanting  in  truth.  The  atmosphere  is  largely  a 
formal  after-scumble. 

590a.  Both,  Andries.  The  Card  Players.  Very  facile, 
easy  work.  Notice  the  way  the  shed  is  painted; 
also  the  costumes  and  the  man's  shoulder.  With 
a  good  colour  effect. 

627.  Brekelenkam,  Quieringh  Gerritz.  Mother  and 
Child.  A  simple  bit  of  domestic  life,  given  with 
plain  colour  and  some  painter's  feeling,  if  not  with 
good  drawing  or  painting. 

644  ]  Brueghel,  Jan  the  Elder  (Velvet).     Landscapes. 

645  }  Several  small  works  of  picturesque  Dutch  scenes, 
647  J  done  with  charming  little  figures  and  good  colour 

results.  No.  647  is  a  fine  study  of  trees  with  figures 
below. 

681.    Cappelle,  Jan  van  de.     Fete  on  Board  Yachts. 

The  composition  is  not  very  satisfactory  and  the 
picture  is  not  in  Cappelle's  best  vein.  Some  of 
his  attributed  works  have  to  be  accepted  with 
reservations.  He  is  confused  with  De  Vlieger  and 
Van  de  Velde,  and  where  once  his  pictures  had  the 
forged  names  of  others  upon  them  there  is  just 
now  pecuniary  incentive  the  other  way,  and  his 
name  appears  on  inferior  Van  de  Veldes  and  De 
Vliegers.  This  picture  has  De  Vlieger's  name 
upon  it. 

21.  Cleve,  Juste  van  der  Beke  van  (Master  of  the 
Death  of  the  Virgin).  Portrait  of  a  Young 
Man.  A  good,  strong  work  with  character  about 
it,  but  there  is  no  particular  reason  to  think  it 


12  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

by  Van  Cleve  the  Elder.  It  is,  perhaps,  too  firm, 
too  strong  for  him. 

701  1  Codde,    Pieter.     Portraits   of  a   Man   and    Wife. 

702  /  Small,  miniature-like  pictures  with  clean  drawing 

and  exact  painting.  The  woman^s  face  is  a  little 
over-modelled,  so  that  it  protrudes  beyond  its  ruff 
and  head-dress. 

723.  Gornelisz  van  Oostsanen  (or  Van  Amsterdam), 
Jacob.  Mount  Calvary.  Overcrowded  with  fig- 
ures and  lacking  in  unity,  but  full  of  beautiful  de- 
tail in  robes  and  ornaments.  Notice  the  kneeling 
figures  in  the  foreground,  with  their  pathetic  ap- 
peal and  their  fine  robes;  also  the  little  angel  at 
the  feet  of  the  Christ  and  those  with  the  cups  at 
the  top.  There  is  no  certainty  about  the  painter 
of  this  picture.  Work  somewhat  similar  to  this 
is  sometimes  given  to  Herri  met  de  Bles. 

722.    Saul  and  the  Witch  of  Endor.     A  good  piece 

of  drawing  and  painting  as  regards  the  individual 
figures,  but  somewhat  scattered  in  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  figures,  although  there  is  a  crescent- 
shaped  swoop  from  right  to  left  that  is  intended 
to  bind  them  together.  The  colour  is  effective 
and  the  painting  of  the  ruined  architecture  very 
cleverly  done.  The  work  does  not  at  all  agree 
with  No.  723,  put  down  to  the  same  man.  This 
No.  722  has  a  Bosch  feeling  about  it. 

735.  Craey,  Dirck.  Maria  de  la  Quevellerie.  A  very 
considerable  portrait  of  good  quality  in  the  paint- 
ing of  the  face,  head-dress,  and  costume.  Notice 
the  pearls  and  earrings  and  the  nicely  painted  hair. 

748.    Cuyp,  Aelbert.     Portrait  of  Young  Man.     By  no 

means  lacking  in  painter  qualities,  but  they  are 


DOU,  GERARD  13 

hardly  those  of  Cuyp.  It  comes  nearer  to  a  fol- 
lower of  Rembrandt.  The  costume  is  well  done, 
the  face  a  little  weak,  the  style  rather  good. 

750.    Fight  between  Birds.     Excellent  in  colour  and 

in  painting.  It  rather  goes  beyond  Hondecoeter, 
of  the  famous  Floating  Feather.  Look  closely  at 
the  masterful  handling  in  the  cock.  The  attribu- 
tion has  been  questioned. 

745.    Landscape  with  Figures  and  Cattle.     A  large 

upright  landscape  with  the  yellow  sunlight  that 
Cuyp  was  so  fond  of  painting.  Some  of  the  yel- 
low was  probably  derived  from  poor  varnish,  and 
as  a  result  the  light  is  now  slightly  exaggerated. 

744.    Mountainous  Landscape.     This  landscape  is  a 

little  thin  in  quality,  perhaps,  but  has  good  sky, 
light,  and  colour. 

768a.    Decker,    Cornells    G.     A  Weaver's   Shop.     A 

rather  fine  interior  with  fair  colour  and  some  fat 
painting. 

773.  Delff,  Jacob  Wlllemsz.  Portrait  of  a  Little 
Girl.  It  is  interesting  as  an  illustration  of  Dutch 
child  life  and  is  not  without  some  good  w^ork  in 
the  painting  of  it. 

798.  Dou,  Gerard.  A  Hermit.  A  picture  handled 
with  some  breadth  and  sense  of  large  truth.  The 
colour  is  not  bad.  It  may  be  by  Brekelenkam  rather 
than  Dou.  The  warmth  of  colour  suggests  the 
imitator  rather  than  the  imitated. 

795.    The  Evening  School.  A  popular  and  well-known 

picture  with  a  candle-light  effect  and  a  very  smooth 
surface.  Done  with  infinite  patience  and  skill.  All 
the  detail  is  there.     But  the  picture,    in  its  final 


14  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

analysis,  is  in  the  category  of  peanut-and-postage- 
stamp  art.  Dou  was  a  great  man  in  little  things, 
and  a  correspondingly  little  man  in  great  things. 
Mere  detail,  done  with  patience,  is  not  art. 

791.    Portrait  of  the  Painter.     With  a  blue  curtain 

that  puts  one's  teeth  on  edge  by  its  falsity  in  value 
and  want  of  quality.  It  is  astonishing  that  so  good 
a  workman  as  Dou  should  have  so  little  feeling  for 
colour. 

794.    Portrait    of  Man   and   Wife.     The   woman  is 

rather  fine  in  costume  and  pose,  as  also  the  man. 
They  keep  their  places  in  the  landscape.  The  lat- 
ter is  supposed  to  have  been  painted  by  Berchem. 

797.    The  Hermit.     Carry  in  your  mind  the  drawing 

and  handling  of  this  hermit's  head  and  skull  to  the 
Louvre,  at  Paris,  and  compare  it  with  the  Hermit 
(No.  2541a)  there  assigned  to  Rembrandt,  but  prob- 
ably by  Dou.   The  pictures  are  not  far  apart. 

N.  N.  Old    Woman    Reading.     A   picture    large   in 

scale  for  Dou  if  minute  in  method.  It  is  in  his 
smoother  style,  very  well  done,  and  fairly  good  in 
colour.  It  is  an  important  Dou,  and  though  it 
is  reminiscent  of  Rembrandt  one  can  see  in  it 
that  smallness  of  method  that  afterward  led 
Denner  and  others  far  astray.  Acquired  by  the 
Museum  in  1913. 

175.    Dutch    SchooL      The  Sister   of  Dirk  Baltus.     A 

little  picture  without  name  or  ancestry,  hard  in 
drawing  but  uncommonly  well  done,  and  full  of 
right  feeling.  What  good  eyes!  And  what  a 
fine  type  of  Dutch  womanhood! 

43a.   Burial  of  a  Patriarch.     An  excellent  picture 

in  colour  and  in  sentiment.     The  heads  are  full  of 


DUTCH  SCHOOL  15 

character.  The  little  figures  in  the  middle  dis- 
tance at  right  and  left  are  the  most  picturesque. 
The  drawing  is  hard  and  the  robes  angular — espe- 
cially the  white  ones  in  the  foreground.  Notice 
the  trees  and  the  sky.  The  picture  is  nearer,  per- 
haps, to  the  Flemish  School  than  to  the  Dutch. 
See  also  No.  43. 

43.    Madonna,  Child,  and  Saints.    This  picture  has 

been  scrubbed  in  the  hands  and  faces  and  also  re- 
painted. It  is  still  rich  in  brocades  and  ornate  in 
jewelling,  but  none  of  it  is  very  well  done.  There 
is  good  feeling  about  it.  The  small  figures  at  the 
left  and  right  are  nice  in  pose  and  in  the  fall  of  their 
robes. 

48.    Two    Panels    of    a     Triptych.      Shewing    the 

strong  individual  heads  of  a  familv/group.  The 
robes  and  altar  clothes  are  rich  ^n  colour,  well 
drawn,  and  well  painted.  Notice  the  curious  little 
angels  with  the  coats-of-arms,  and  the  attractive 
landscapes.     To  be  compared  with  No.  47. 

53  \ Panels  of  a  Triptych.     Two  panels  with  much 

54  /  fine  colour.     There  are  beautiful  garments,  hats, 

armour,  with  good  architecture  (in  No.  54)  and  a 
good  Bosch  landscape  (in  No.  53).  The  work  of 
an  early  and  apparently  unknown  master.  On 
*  the  reverse  of  the  panels  are  figures  in  white  in 
architectural  framings. 

151.    Andrew,  Bastard  of  Wassenaer.     It  has  some 

distinction  about  it  and  is  well  done.  The  painter 
of  it  knew  what  was  refined  and  dignified. 

47.    Christ  on  the  Cross  between  the  Thieves.     A 

small  triptych  in  which  the  figures  on  the  crosses 
hang    heavily.     The    foreground    figures    lack    in 


16  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

drawing  but  have  good  colour.  With  Httle  angels 
bearing  coats-of-arms  as  in  No.  48.  The  triptych 
is  possibly  of  German  origin. 

855.  Dyck,  Anthony  van.  Portrait  of  Johannes  Bap- 
tista  Franck.  It  has  been  scrubbed  and  retouched 
so  much  that  Van  Dyck  should  hardly  be  held  re- 
sponsible for  it.  The  hand  is  quite  wrecked  and 
the  face  is  in  not  much  better  condition.  Origi- 
nally it  came  from  the  School  of  Rubens,  but  it 
was  not  necessarily  done  by  Van  Dyck. 

854.  Portrait  of  Frangois  i?)  van  der  Borght^  Un- 
happily, the  canvas  has  been  restored  until  there  is 
little  of  Van  Dyck  left  in  it.  The  face  has  the 
colour  and  texture  of  an  old-time  false  face  or 
mask,  the  hands  are  blackened  by  dark  under- 
basing,  the  sea  and  sky  at  the  left  are  ruined.  It 
has  the  lofty  air  of  a  Van  Dyck  composition  and 
that  is  about  all.  Look  at  the  now  dreadful  ruff 
and  cuffs.     The  value  of  the  white  is  lost. 

853.    Mary    Magdalen.      In    its    present    condition 

the  picture  is  of  questionable  value.  It  is  badly 
restored  in  the  left  arm,  right  shoulder,  face,  hands, 
and  elsewhere.  The  drawing  is  faulty.  The  pic- 
ture was  probably  never  wonderful  in  colour.  No. 
853a  is  no  better. 

856.  Portrait  of  Nicolaes  van  der  Borght.  A  con- 
ventional, somewhat  over-posed  portrait.  The  back- 
ground above  and  to  the  right  of  the  head,  and 
also  at  the  feet,  is  much  hurt  by  cleaning.  The 
right  cheek  and  the  jaw  are  out  of  value,  perhaps 
as  the  result  of  retouching.  The  scene  at  the  left 
is  also  damaged.  The  head  is  not  wanting  in  force 
nor  the  figure  in  some  nobility  of  air. 


ELIAS,  NICOLAES  17 

857.    Prince     William    II    and    the   Princess    Mary 

Stuart.  In  Van  Dyck's  smoother  and  weaker 
vein,  with  more  effect  in  the  costumes  than  in  the 
faces.  The  faces  and  hands  have  probably  lost 
some  of  their  original  flesh-notes,  and  also  some  of 
their  drawing,  through  retouching.  The  look  of 
cosmetics  is  apparent  in  both  faces,  and  the  eyes 
and  noses  are  hard.  Painted  at  the  end  of  Van 
Dyck's  career,  and  said  to  be  the  last  picture  he 
painted  in  England. 

877.  Eeckhout,  Gerbrandt  van  den.  Woman  Taken 
in  Adultery.  Good  grouping  and  good  colour 
effect  are  here  apparent.  The  kneeling  woman 
and  the  bulky  figure  back  of  her,  as  well  as  the  one 
at  the  right,  are  very  forceful.  Eeckhout  was  often 
rambling  in  his  drawing  and  careless  with  heads, 
hands,  and  feet,  but  he  almost  always  succeeded 
in  giving  bulk,  body,  grouping,  and  atmosphere. 
In  getting  the  ensemble  he  is,  perhaps,  the  best  of  the 
Rembrandt  followers,  and  frequently  leads  people 
to  think  him  Rembrandt^s  self.  The  central  figure 
with  the  white  turban  is  the  same  model  as  in  the 
Berlin  picture  (No.  828 j),  there  ascribed  to  Rem- 
brandt. See  also  the  background  landscape  in 
No.  879  for  resemblances  to  the  backgrounds  in 
the  Rembrandt  pictures  at  Berlin. 

887.  Ekels  the  Younger,  Jan.  A  Writer.  Rigid  in 
the  drawing  but  effectively  composed.  The  light 
and  colour  have  not  the  warmth  or  depth  of  Ver- 
meer  or  De  Hooch,  but  there  is  some  very  good 
painting  in  the  picture. 

8941  Elias    (Pickenoy),  Nicolaes.     Maerten  Rey  and 
895  /  Wife.    Two  smoothly  finished  portraits  of  no  pro- 
nounced strength  but  much  carefully  elaborated 


18  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

truth.  The  woman's  portrait  is,  perhaps,  the  more 
acceptable,  but  the  face  is  too  porcelain4ike  in 
texture.     The  ruff  is  well  done,  though  hard. 

897  \  Portraits   of   Hinlopen   and    Wife.     The   por- 

898  /  trait  of  the  woman  is  the  better  of  the  two  though 

somewhat  over-modelled  and  too  high-keyed  in  the 
high  lights.  The  figure  stands  out  too  much. 
This  is  also  noticeable  in  the  little  coat-of-arms  at 
the  right,  which  looks  placed,  not  upon  the  wall, 
but  cut  out  and  pasted  on  the  panel.  It  is  false 
in  value  as  is  the  coat-of-arms  in  No.  897. 

49.  Engelbrechtsen,  Cornelis.  Christ  Taking  Leave 
of  His  Mother.  The  drawing  leaves  something  to 
be  desired,  but  the  handling  and  the  colour  are 
excellent — particularly  the  colour.  The  spirit  of 
it  is  right.  Notice  the  group  of  women  at  the  left. 
The  catalogue  says  "in  the  style''  of  Engelbrecht- 
sen. It  bears  the  false  monogram  of  Albrecht 
Diirer.     See  also  the  injured  No.  904a. 

907.    Everdingen,  Allart  van.     Landscape  in  Sweden. 

Wherever  located  by  name,  this  landscape  is  done 
after  the  Dutch  landscape  formula  of  the  time.  It 
is  a  little  more  varied  than  Ruisdael  in  theme,  but 
quite  as  mannered  in  the  doing  of  the  foliage,  sky, 
and  water.  Interesting  in  composition  and  subject, 
but  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  the  subject  taken 
from  Sweden  more  than  from  the  Harz  Mountains 
in  Germany,  or  out  of  the  painter's  head. 

909.    Swedish  Landscape.     Much   better  in  colour 

quality  than  No.  907.  The  sky  is  good;  also  the 
trees  and  the  broken  light  under  them.  A  moun- 
tain scene  with  dashing  water  and  some  life  about 
it.     Notice  the  trees  against  the  sky. 


FLINCK,  GOVERT  19 

919.  Fabritius,  Bernaert.  Family  of  Willem  van  der 
Helm.  A  portrait  group  of  a  man,  his  wife  and  their 
child,  with  a  background  of  curtain,  column, 
Dutch  house,  flag,  and  sky.  Also  with  a  table- 
cloth in  the  foreground  as  in  the  large  Vermeer 
at  Dresden.  The  hands  have  sharp  and  pointed 
fingers;  they  are  mannered  and  not  well  drawn. 
The  eyes  are  round  and  wide  apart.  A  picture  to 
be  studied  because  the  work  of  this  painter  has 
been  much  confused  with  that  of  Rembrandt. 

921.  Fabritius,  Car  el.  Beheading  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist. A  rather  heavy  piece  of  work  once  put  down 
to  Rembrandt  and  now  (with  a  little  more  of 
probability)  to  Fabritius.  It  is  foxy  in  colour  and 
belongs,  perhaps,  nearer  to  Drost  than  to  Fabritius. 

920.    Abraham  de  Notte.     A  good  portrait  in  spite 

of  its  bad  treatment.  A  personality  of  some 
power.  The  drawing  of  the  hands  is  a  little  heavy 
and  that  of  the  head  a  little  uncertain.  The  colour 
is  now  very  yellow. 

340.  Flemish  School  (15th  Century).  Our  Lady  of 
Mercy  iPieta).  With  some  sincere  feeling  and 
good,  if  hard,  drawing  about  it.  The  man  at  the 
right  has  character  and  is  of  good  report.  Attrib- 
uted to  the  School  of  Roger  van  der  Weyden. 

926a.  Flinck,  Govert.  Goze  Centen.  The  eyes,  mouth, 
ears,  white  ruff,  and  shadows  suggest  a  youthful 
following  of  Rembrandt.  It  is  immature  work, 
but  starts  out  with  a  breadth  of  view  and  strength 
of  touch  which  Flinck  hardly  lived  up  to  in  after 
work.     Cleaned  too  much. 

925.    Fete  of  the  Civic  Guard  in  1648.     It  is  more 

*      of  a  pictorial  effect  than  similar  subjects  by  Hals, 


20  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

Codde,  and  Van  der  Heist.  There  is  an  attempt 
at  unity  in  the  Hnes  as  in  the  grouping  of  the  two 
central  figures  near  the  white  flag,  but  the  result 
is  still  two  distinct  groups  at  right  and  left.  There 
is  also  an  attempt  at  atmosphere.  Not  wonder- 
ful art,  but,  considering  the  difficulties  of  the  sub- 
ject, Flinck  acquitted  himself  fairly  well. 

927.    Isaac  Blessing  Jacob,     Done  with  the   types 

*  and  in  the  style  of  Rembrandt.  Worse  pictures 
than  this  by  Flinck  have  passed  for  Rembrandts. 
It  is  good  in  colour  and  light  if  heavy  in  handling 
and  somewhat  weak  in  drawing.  The  striping  of 
the  green  sleeve  looks  like  paint  on  the  outside  of 
the  cloth,  and  this  does  not  improve  as  you  draw 
away  from  the  picture  as  with  the  Rembrandts. 
Notice  the  same  ineffectual  work  in  the  turban  at 
the  left  and  in  the  hands  and  head  of  Isaac  at  the 
right.  A  good  Flinck  and  quite  in  agreement  with 
pictures  by  him  at  The  Hague,  there  assigned  to 
Rembrandt.  He  also  did  the  Portrait  of  a  Turk 
at  Munich  (No.  325),  there  given  to  Rembrandt,  but 
in  perfect  agreement  with  the  Isaac  in  this  picture. 

931.    Portrait  of  John   Uitenbogaert.     An  excellent 

*  portrait  of  an  interesting  historical  character. 
How  well  the  hand  is  done !  The  head  is  massively 
conceived  in  flesh-and-bone  structure  but  rather 
timidly  painted.  The  picture  is  yellow  with  oil, 
excessively  used  in  the  pigments,  perhaps.  Once 
put  down  to  Rembrandt  and  now  to  Flinck  though 
it  is  hardly  of  Flinck  origin. 

935.  Francken  the  Younger,  Frans.  Abdication 
of  Charles  V.  These  now  discredited  painters, 
who  followed  Italy  and  have  been  despised  for 
centuries  therefor,  how  well  they  understood  their 


GEERTGEN  TOT  ST.  JANS  21 

technique!  What  good  craftsmen  they  were! 
Look  closely  at  the  painting — the  kneeling  figures  at 
the  right,  for  instance — and  how  surely  it  is  done! 
'  The  spirit  of  the  seventeenth-century  Italianised 
Flemings  may  have  been  all  wrong,  and  their  ec- 
lecticism an  impossible  amalgam,  but  they  were 
craftsmen  and  painters  for  all  that. 
947.  Garofalo  (Benvenuto  Tisi).  The  Holy  Trinity. 
A  small  but  good  Garofalo  which  holds  its  own 
very  well  in  a  roomful  of  Dutch  pictures. 

950.  Geertgen  tot  Sint  Jans  (Gerard  of  Haarlem). 
*  Allegory  of  the  Sacrifice  of  Christ,  The  picture 
is  stained  somewhat  but  is  still  good  in  colour. 
The  types  of  women  are  most  interesting,  as  also 
the  little  children  in  the  centre  and  the  altar  group 
at  the  back.  Once  regarded  as  a  Van  Eyck.  It 
is,  in  measure,  in  agreement  with  several  other  pic- 
tures ascribed  to  Geertgen  in  the  galleries  at  Berlin 
and  Vienna.     See  also  No.  950a. 

950a.   Adoration  of  Magi.    An  over-cleaned  panel 

with  much  fine  feeling  and  good  colour  still  left 
in  it.  Notice  the  garb  of  the  kneeling  king  and  the 
golden  crowns  and  gifts  of  the  others.  The  com- 
pany in  the  distance  has  good  movement  about  it. 
This  picture  seems  different  in  painting  and  draw- 
ing from  No.  950.  The  pictures  are  not  in  agree- 
ment. Study  the  difference  in  the  drawing  of  the 
hands  and  eyes.  Also  the  painting  of  the  robes 
and  the  trees  and  the  handling  of  the  hair.  This 
Adoration  is  hardly  by  the  painter  known  as  Geert- 
gen tot  Sint  Jans. 

950b.    Nativity.    With  pretty  little  angels  showing 

parti-coloured  wings.  The  dress  of  the  Virgin  is 
beautiful  in  pattern  and  colour.     The  picture  was 


22  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

never  very  strong  in  drawing  and  is  now  somewhat 
cleaned.  The  attribution  will  not  do.  It  is  too 
poor  in  workmanship  for  the  man  who  did  the  No. 
2563a  in  the  Louvre. 

951.  Geertgen  tot  Sint  Jans  (School  of).  Martyr- 
dom of  St.  Lucy.  Probably  by  the  painter  of 
No.  951a.  The  composition  is  scattered  but  the 
colour  of  the  robes  is  good,  and  there  is  a  fine 
landscape  at  the  back. 

951a.   Crucifixion.    The  figures  are  well  set  in  the 

landscape  and  good  in  colour.  The  drawing  is 
inferior.  It  is  probably  a  school  piece,  though  it 
must  be  confessed  that  we  know  little  about  the 
master  and  less  about  his  school  or  followers. 

965d.    Gelder,  Aert  de.      Christ  Taken  at  Gethsemane. 

This  and  No.  965e  are  two  of  a  series,  now  scattered, 
illustrating  the  Passion  of  Christ.  It  is  fine  in 
brush  work  and  rather  good  in  grouping  and  colour. 

965e.    Cfirist  Before  the  Sanhedrim.    A  Rembrandt- 

esque  composition,  careless  in  drawing  but  with  a 
good  effect  of  colour,  air,  and  light.  The  effects  of 
Aert  de  Gelder  are  usually  superficial.  He  breaks 
down  in  knowledge  of  underlying  construction. 
Rembrandt  had  knowledge  as  well  as  genius,  but 
De  Gelder  had  merely  a  glib  facility  in  imitation. 

17g.  German  School  (about  1500).  Descent  from 
the  Cross.  It  is  badly  drawn  but  has  tragic 
power  about  it.  Notice  the  figure  of  the  Magdalen. 
It  is  certainly  convincing  in  its  feeling. 

1 7c.    One    of    the    Three    Magi.     A    fragment    of 

No.  17b,  odd  in  colour  and  striking  in  its  harmony 
of  blues  and  greens  with  purples.     No.  17b  is  not 


HALS,  DIRCK  23 

so  interesting,  perhaps,  but  has  the  same  quality 
of  colour. 

984a.  Goes,  Hugo  van  der.  Portrait  of  a  Man  and 
St.  John,  An  excellent  piece  of  characterisation. 
Rubbed  and  scrubbed  too  much,  but  apparently 
not  repainted.  It  bears  a  little  likeness  to  Van  der 
Goes  work,  but  the  attribution  is  by  no  means  a 
certainty.     It  is  a  detail  of  a  larger  picture. 

990.  Goyen,  Jan  van.  Landscape.  Large,  but  of  in- 
different quality.  Nature  is  not  quite  so  flabby  as 
this.  The  trees  are  mannered,  the  sky  is  grey  and 
a  little  stained  in  spots,  the  foreground  pretends  to 
shadow,  but  it  is  only  brown  paint. 

99L    The      Valkenhof,     Nimeguen.     Van     Goyen 

painted  this  subject  several  times  in  this  same 
tone  of  light.  The  sky  here  is  rather  poor,  the 
water  is  like  the  sky,  and  even  the  walls  and  the 
buildings  have  a  soft  quality.  It  is  astonishing 
that  Van  Goyen  could  produce  such  very  good 
and,  at  the  same  time,  such  very  bad  pictures. 

989a.  Panorama  in  Guelders.  A  small  but  excel- 
lent landscape,  with  a  fine  clouded  sky,  and  a  dis- 
tant river  with  boats.  Much  better  than  Van 
Goyen's  larger  pictures. 

1021.  Hackaert,  Jan.  The  Ash  Tree  Avenue.  A  study 
of  trees  and  sunlight  through  them,  not  inspired 
or  too  successful,  but  an  effort  at  getting  away 
from  the  grey  monotony  of  the  Van  Goyens  and 
Ruisdaels.  The  figures  are  said  to  have  been 
painted  by  A.  van  de  Velde. 

1082.  Hals,  Dirck.  Open  Air  Banquet.  This  picture 
is  crude  in  the  sky  and  anything  like  atmospheric 


24  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

envelope  is  absent.  There  is  no  modulation  or 
subtlety  to  the  light  in  foreground  or  background. 
That  is  sufficient  to  account  for  the  paucity  of 
good  colour.  The  figures  are  not  bad.  A  cold 
picture. 

1089  1   Hals,     Frans.      Portraits     of    Nicolaes    Hasselaer 

1090  /  and  Wife,     With  a  good  deal  of  Frans  Hals  care- 

lessness in  handling  and  very  little  of  his  effective 
drawing  and  modelling.  In  the  man's  portrait 
something  at  the  right  has  been  painted  over,  but 
not  quite  out.  The  brown  tone  of  Hals  is  here, 
but  the  whites  are  staring  white,  the  blacks  are 
commonplace,  and  none  of  them  has  any  quality. 
Neither  portrait  is  remarkable.  They  are  probably 
school  pieces  of  some  sort. 

1088.    Portrait  of  Maritge    Voogt   Claesdr.      A  sober 

portrait  with  no  great  flourish  of  trumpets  or 
painter's  bravura.  The  figure  is  seated  in  a  chair, 
in  a  room  the  walls  of  which  are  indicated.  The 
light  comes  from  one  direction,  and  a  shadow  is 
cast  on  the  wall.  The  face  is  not  well  drawn, 
though  full  of  seriousness  and  dignity.  The  figure 
and  hands  are  so-so,  the  cap  and  ruff  very  good. 
There  is  little  colour,  but  a  fine  grey  tone  and  a  good 
envelope.  The  coat-of-arms  at  the  left  does  not 
keep  its  place  on  the  wall  but  comes  forward  into 
the  first  plane  of  the  picture,  which  may  be  due 
to  later  restoration.  The  handling  in  the  fur  is 
not  very  effective. 

1093.  The  Merry  Andrew.  A  picture  that  is  im- 
pressive at  first  but  does  not  bear  close  analysis. 
The  handling  is  flashy  but  not  effective.  The 
tendency  of  the  brush  is  to  circle  the  oval  of  the 
face  and  drag  the  high  lights  over;  to  model  the 


HALS,  FRANS  25 

nose  and  eyelids  by  following  their  outlines  with 
a  loaded  brush.  In  the  dress  the  handling  is  free 
but  faulty  in  drawing,  notably  in  the  red  slashings. 
This  kind  of  handling,  with  the  singularly  bad 
drawing  of  the  hands  and  the  lute,  and  the  peculiar 
tone  of  colour  belong  not  to  Frans  Hals,  but  to 
his  pupil  and  imitator,  Judith  Leyster,  to  whom 
this  picture  may  be  attributed  without  injustice 
to  any  one.  Compare  its  mannerisms  with  Ley- 
ster's  pictures  in  this  gallery,  Nos.  1455  and  1455a. 
The  same  hand  did  the  three  pictures.  The  pupil 
is  here  following  a  picture  of  Hals  now  in  the 
Rothschild  Collection,  Paris. 

1084.   Portrait  of  Man  and  Wife.    An  early  picture 

and  not  Hals  at  his  best,  if  at  all.  It  is  sharp 
in  drawing  and  uneasy  in  the  blacks  of  the  costumes. 
The  landscape  adds  nothing  and  is  hardly  believ- 
able. The  sky  is  greenish  as  a  possible  result  of 
using  a  fugitive  blue.  The  portraits  were  once 
thought  to  be  of  Hals  and  his  wife.  The  buildings 
and  small  figures  at  the  back  suggest  Dirck  Hals 
as  the  painter,  and  the  ruffs  and  cuffs  are  not  far 
removed  from  him. 

1086  1  Portraits  of  Lucas  le  Clercq  and  Wife.     These 

1087  J  portraits  are  not  distinguished  by  any  particular 

excellence.  The  man  has  a  great  bulk  of  body  and  a 
well-drawn  face.  The  portrait  of  the  woman  is 
better  in  its  plain  painting  and  drawing.  Hals,  of 
course,  was  not  always  distinguished,  not  always 
scoring  successes;  but  one  sometimes  wonders  over 
the  great  number  of  poor  and  mediocre  works  put 
down  to  him. 

1091.    The  Jolly  Toper.     A  colour  scheme  in  buff 

*       and  yellow,  quite  in  Hals's  better  vein.     The  won- 


26  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

derful  hat  is  done  easily  and  truly,  as  also  the  hair, 
beard,  face,  ruff,  and  yellow  coat.  The  left  hand 
(and  arm)  with  a  glass  is  a  little  curious  in  fore- 
shortening, as  also  the  right  arm.  The  belt  and 
the  figure  it  encircles  are  quite  right.  This  is  a 
well-known  Hals,  painted  with  gusto  and  verve, 
in  perfect  keeping  with  the  subject.  Such  a  tour 
de  force  does  not  rise  to  the  height  of  the  master's 
work  at  Haarlem,  however.  There  he  is  to  be 
seen  at  his  best. 

1085.    Hals,  Frans  and  Pieter  Codde.     The  Company 
of  Captain  Reael  and  Lieutenant  Michielsz.     The 

two  seated  figures  are  probably  by  Hals.  The 
head  of  the  young  man  standing  in  the  centre  is 
probably  indicative  of  Codde.  The  picture  is  not 
so  good  in  composition  as  the  Van  der  Heist  (No. 
1135)  near  by.  It  is  cut  in  two  by  the  architec- 
ture of  the  background.  In  light  and  shade  it  is 
not  bad,  nor  is  it  wanting  in  a  certain  atmospheric 
quality  in  which  the  Van  der  Heists  are  lacking; 
but  it  is  not  wonderful. 

1127.  Heemskerck,  Maerten  van  (Veen).  The  Sibyl 
*  of  Erythraea.  A  little  knotty  in  the  hands  and 
florid  in  the  drapery,  but  a  strong  figure  of  the 
Scorel  type  and  probably  influenced  by  the  work 
of  Michelangelo.  The  robe  and  background 
were  never  finished.  The  head  is  superb.  The 
reverse  of  the  panel  shows  the  portrait  of  the  donor, 
Matelief  Dammasz,  with  St.  Paul — the  former 
excellent  in  head,  hands,  and  robes,  the  latter 
majestic  in  stature.  Notice  also  the  colour  of  the 
altar  and  the  beautifully  painted  coat-of-arms. 
All  told,  it  is  a  masterpiece  of  Dutch  sixteenth- 
century  art  based  on  Italian  style  and  method. 


HELST,  B.  VAN  DER  27 

Look  at  it  closely  and  never  mind  the  art  history 
that  tells  you  these  Italianised  Dutchmen  are  neg- 
ligible. Heemskerck  was  not  only  an  individuality 
but  a  power. 
1143.  Heist,  Bartholomeus  van  der.  Portrait  of  a 
Warrior.  The  face  seems  rather  mild  and  is  pos- 
sibly over-cleaned.  It  is  fairly  well  drawn.  The 
coat  is  effective  in  colour.  Van  der  Heist  is  a  man 
of  some  surprises.  He  is  usually  tame  and  con- 
ventional but  occasionally  he  is  spirited  and  indi- 
vidual.    See  No.  1145  for  an  example. 

1145.    Portrait  of  Kortenaer.     With  a  blind  left  eye. 

*  A  strong  picture,  powerful  in  the  truth  of  head, 
body,  and  hand.  And  with  quite  a  blare  of  colour. 
Compare  this  head,  hair,  chin,  mouth,  and  hand 
with  the  so-called  Velasquez  Admiral  Borro  at 
Berlin  (No.  413a).  Van  der  Heist  probably  did  not 
paint  the  Borro,  but  it  offers  superficial  suggestions 
of  him. 

1139.  Portrait  of  Andries  Bicker.  An  excellent  ex- 
ample of  Van  der  Heist,  with  a  rather  strongly 
modelled  face  and  a  fine  personality  all  through. 
How  well  the  hands  are  done! 

1140.    Portrait  of  Gerard  Bicker.     Brilliant  in  colour 

and  rather  free  in  the  painting.  What  a  superb 
piece  of  characterisation!  It  is  no  doubt  an  exact 
portrait.  The  student  should  study  this  picture 
closely  in  connection  with  the  so-called  Velasquez 
Admiral  Borro  (No.  413a),  in  the  Berlin  Gallery. 
Compare  the  drawing  of  the  forehead,  hair,  eyes, 
cheek,  chin  here  with  the  Borro,  and  a  first  super- 
ficial resemblance  will  appear.  Then  go  closer 
into  the  matter  of  the  drawing  of  the  hands,  the 
painting  of  the  hair  and  linen.     Bring  into  the  com- 


28  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

parison  all  the  rest  of  the  Van  der  Heist  portraits 
and  study  the  style  of  composition,  the  lighting, 
colouring,  etc.  The  Borro  is  a  Netherland  pic- 
ture and  was  possibly  done  by  Jordaens,  but  it 
shows  also  resemblances  to  Van  der  Heist,  though 
too  bluff  for  him  in  spirit. 

1135.    Banquet  of  the  Civic  Guard,     A  fine  militia- 

*  company  picture,  done  a  little  later  than  Rem- 
brandt's Night  Watch  and  about  as  near  to  the 
historical  canvas  on  a  large  scale  as  the  Amsterdam 
Dutch  ever  came.  It  is  really  a  series  of  individual 
portraits  put  together  with  such  unity  as  the  sub- 
ject would  allow.  In  this  picture  the  standard- 
bearer  is  central  and  is  meant  to  balance  Captain 
Witsen  (with  a  drinking-horn  on  the  right)  and  the 
old  man  with  the  yellow  stockings  (standing  at 
the  left);  but  with  the  unlooked-for  result  that 
the  standard-bearer  in  blue  comes  forward  and  the 
sides  rather  recede.  The  variety  of  pose  in  head, 
hand,  and  figure  is  remarkable — in  the  hands  par- 
ticularly. It  has  been  said  that  if  all  the  hands 
in  this  picture  should  be  cut  off  and  thrown  into 
a  basket  they  could  be  identified  and  put  back  on 
their  respective  bodies,  so  individually  are  they 
drawn,  and  so  absolutely  does  each  pair  of  hands 
belong  to  its  own  particular  body.  In  fact,  the 
picture  is  more  remarkable  for  its  individual  por- 
traiture than  for  its  composition  or  unity.  The 
group  as  a  whole  lacks  subordination,  air,  and 
oneness  of  colour.  But  it  is  certainly  a  remarkable 
group  of  portraits.  The  student  should  study  the 
hands  resting  on  the  hips  in  this  picture,  the  heads 
in  their  modelHng  of  the  brows,  eyes,  and  mouths, 
with  the  painting  of  the  hair,  the  costumes,  the 
flag,  in  connection  with  the  so-called  Velasquez, 


HOBBEMA,  MEINDERT  29 

Admiral  Borro,  at  Berlin  (No.  413a).  Notice  par- 
ticularly the  man  in  yellow  at  the  right  and  the 
head  of  the  standard-bearer.  See  also  Nos.  1137 
and  1136. 

1134.    The   Company   of  Captain  Bicker.      Another 

large  militia-company  picture,  but  by  no  means 
so  well  done  as  No.  1135.  The  action  is  a  little 
disturbing,  the  posing  rather  obvious,  the  colour 
lighter  and  more  spotty.  Nor  are  the  faces  and 
hands  so  well  done.  It  is  a  less  successful  perform- 
ance. Notice  the  attitudes  of  the  men  of  large 
bulk  at  the  left  and  right  of  the  centre  and  the 
men  at  the  far  ends  with  hands  on  their  hips.  The 
resemblance  to  the  Borro  referred  to  in  the  note 
upon  No.  1135  is  again  apparent.  The  handling 
in  both  these  pictures  is  free  and  not  unlike  the 
Borro.  And  yet  the  Borro  was  probably  done  by 
Jordaens. 

1171.  Heyden,  Jan  van  der.  Martelaarsgracht,  Am- 
sterdam. Very  exact,  architectural,  topographical, 
as  regards  the  buildings,  but  not  without  pic- 
turesque results.  Notice  the  colour  effect  of  the 
roofs  against  the  blue  sky,  at  the  left.  And  what 
light,  airy,  floating  clouds!  One  does  not  always 
see  such  clouds  in  Dutch  art. 

1188.  Hobbema,  Meindert.  Water  Mill.  In  Hobbe- 
ma's  usual  vein,  with  no  great  subtlety  or  distinc- 
tion or  sentiment  about  it,  but,  on  the  contrary,  a 
rather  grey  prosaic  view  of  nature  and  a  mannered 
way  of  representing  it  in  art.  The  sky  is  good  and 
the  light  not  bad  save  where  it  falls  in  flickers  and 
spots  on  the  foliage. 

1187.   Water    Mill.     A    repetition    of    a    well-worn 

theme  with  the  usual  effects  of  light,  air,  and  sky — 


** 


30  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

all  of  them  a  little  too  obvious.  It  is  not  at  all 
certain  that  Hobbema  did  every  mouldy,  slate- 
grey  landscape  put  down  to  him.  Had  he  no  pupils 
or  followers?  Yet  how  often  do  you  see  a  land- 
scape given  to  the  School  of  Hobbema? 

1224.  Hondecoeter,  Melchior  d'.  The  Floating 
Feather,  Supposed  to  be  the  painter's  master- 
piece, possibly  because  the  famous  feather  on  the 
water  floats  instead  of  sinking.  An  excellent  bird 
picture,  with  good  colour  effect,  in  which  the 
floating  feather  cuts  no  figure  whatever.  Art  is 
not  made  up  of  such  trivialities,  though  guides 
and  guide-books  may  so  decree. 

1248.  Hooch,  Pieter  de.  The  Pantry.  A  beautiful 
picture  in  light,  air,  and  colour,  showing  an  old- 
time  Holland  interior  with  all  its  quaintness  and 
picturesqueness.  It  is  freely  painted  in  the  figures, 
which  have  great  humanity  and  charm  about  them, 
especially  the  little  girl  with  the  pretty  hair  and 
embroidered  cap.  Notice  the  folds  of  the  little 
grey  skirt,  the  shoulder-straps,  and  the  ribboned 
belt  at  the  waist — how  beautifully  they  are  done! 
There  are  two  points  of  sight  in  the  picture,  but 
the  one  at  the  left  is  so  obviously  a  repetition  of 
the  note  at  the  right  that  it  is  not  disturbing.  The 
light  is  well-nigh  perfect.  The  room  is  excellent, 
the  floor  and  wall  just  right.  It  is  an  exceptional 
De  Hooch.  It  is  worth  while  to  contrast  this  pic- 
ture with  the  pseudo-Vermeer  interior  (No.  2528) 
hanging  in  a  room  near  by.  The  De  Hooch  is 
much  finer  in  every  way.  The  top  of  the  picture 
(the  ceiling)  is  hurt;  and  on  the  wall,  above 
the  woman,  a  window  or  picture  has  been  painted 
out. 


HOOGSTRATEN  31 

1249.   Interior.     The    woman,   the   child,    and    the 

chair  in  this  picture  should  be  (mentally)  carried 
into  the  next  room  and  there  closely  compared 
with  the  woman,  child,  and  chair  in  No.  1248,  by 
De  Hooch.  Look  closely  at  both  pictures.  The 
difference  to  the  advantage  of  No.  1248  must  be 
apparent  to  the  least  observant  of  picture  gazers. 
The  light  and  the  street  in  this  No.  1249  are  not 
so  bad.  It  is  an  inferior  De  Hooch,  if  by  him 
at  all. 

1250.  Morning  Toilet.  This  picture  should  be  com- 
pared in  quality  with  the  drawing  of  the  dresses, 
the  handling  of  the  hair,  and  the  light-and-shade 
of  No.  1248.  It  is  not  so  good  as  the  latter.  The 
catalogue  questions  the  signature  but  not  the 
picture.  It  is  probable  that  neither  is  by  De 
Hooch.  The  work  looks  more  like  that  of  Janssens 
than  any  other  painter. 

1251.    The  Country  House.     It  has  about  the  same 

quality  for  out-of-doors  as  the  picture  near  it 
(No.  1249)  has  for  indoors.  The  servant  washing 
the  kettle  is  the  best  part  of  it.  Look  at  the  hands 
of  the  three  figures  at  the  table,  or  their  heads. 
It  is  a  school  piece  or  a  bad  original,  one  hardly 
knows  which. 

1252.   Mother's  Joy.    Rather  good  in  the  drawing 

of  the  room,  but  not  in  any  way  a  remarkable 
picture.  It  has  the  look  of  a  school  piece  or  a 
picture  done  by  some  follower. 

There  is  only  one  first-rate  De  Hooch  in  this 

gallery,  but  that  (No.  1248)  is  a  masterpiece  in 

little. 

1255.    HoogStraten,    SamueL     Portrait    of    Mattheus 

van  den  Broucke.     A  pretentious  and  exaggerated 


32  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

portrait,  better  in  the  gold  of  the  chains,  sword, 
and  stick  than  any  other  part  of  it.  The  face  is 
large  and  weak,  the  colour  without  charm,  the 
handling  thin  and  rather  commonplace. 

1256.    The  Sick  Lady.     For  all  her  red    eyes  and 

pallid  look,  the  lady  sits  up  and  poses  a  bit  for  her 
picture.  She  is  more  elegant  than  Steen's  Sick 
Lady  (No.  2246)  but  not  nearly  so  real.  Although 
handsome  in  colour  and  easily  handled,  the  dress 
is  too  high  in  light  and  the  picture  is  hard  and 
airless,  reminding  one  in  measure  of  the  pseudo- 
Vermeer  (No.  2528)  in  another  room. 

1315.  Jordaens,  Jakob.  A  Satyr,  This  is  no  doubt 
intended  to  represent  Pan  playing  on  his  pipe. 
The  hands  are  poorly  done,  but  the  rest  of  the 
figure  is  fairly  well  indicated  as  regards  its  bulk, 
though  none  too  accurate  in  any  part  of  it.  It 
may  be  an  old  copy. 

1350.  Keyset,  Thomas  de.  Pieter  Schout,  A  cavalier 
on  horseback  riding  across  a  fine  dune  landscape. 
Smoothly  painted,  but  just  as  accurate,  dignified, 
and  straightforward  in  workmanship  as  in  the  char- 
acter of  the  man  and  horse  depicted.  What  an 
unusual  and  original  way  of  painting  an  equestrian 
portrait!     It  is  Dutch  all  through. 

1349.    The   Family   of   Meebeeck    Cruywaghen.     An 

excellent  family  group  held  together  in  landscape 
with  considerable  success.  The  prevailing  yellow 
tone  is  probably  due  to  an  excessive  use  of  oil  or 
varnish  as  a  vehicle.  See  also  the  shooting-com- 
pany picture.  No.  1340 — an  excellent  De  Keyser. 

1375.  Koninck,  Salomon.  The  Old  Savant.  A  pic- 
ture by  a  Rembrandt  follower,  which  is  worth  bear- 


* 


MAES,   NICOLAS  33 

ing  in  mind,  that  you  may  not  think  when  you  see 
in  other  galleries  this  rather  pretty  painting  of  stuffs 
and  garments  and  this  forced  lighting  that  they 
necessarily  mean  a  picture  by  Rembrandt's  own 
hand.  It  is  like  the  Minerva  (No.  828c)  in  the 
Berlin  Gallery,  attributed  to  Rembrandt.  Possibly 
both  pictures  were  painted  by  Koninck.  He  may 
also  have  done  the  Philosophers  in  the  Louvre. 

1426.    Lastman,  Pieter.     Christ  Healing  a  Leper.     An 

interesting  example  of  Lastman — one  of  the  mas- 
ters of  Rembrandt — with  some  features  of  dark- 
golden  landscape  that  are  now  considered  peculiarly 
Rembrandtesque. 
1452.  Leyden,  Lucas  van.  The  Sermon.  It  seems 
less  like  Lucas  van  Leyden  and  more  like  Bosch. 
See  the  note  on  the  Leyden  at  Brussels  (No.  780). 
This  is  in  a  similar  vein  and  style,  and  is  also  mono- 
grammed  and  has  the  owl  sign  like  the  Bosch  here 
(No.  587).  The  pictures  of  Bosch  are  confused 
with  those  of  Lucas  in  more  than  one  gallery. 

1455.  Leyster,  Judith.  The  Jolly  Toper.  In  the  style 
and  spirit  of  Hals,  but  by  his  pupil  and  imitator, 
Judith  Leyster.  It  has  not  the  master's  drawing, 
sure  handling,  or  colouring.  To  be  compared  care- 
fully with  No.  1093,  put  down  to  Hals,  to  establish 
this  latter  as  an  authentic  work  of  Judith  Leyster. 
The  comparison  might  utilise  also  No.  1455a,  by 
Leyster.  The  Fisher  Boy  and  Playing  Boys  pic- 
tures in  European  galleries,  attributed  to  Hals,  also 
hark  back  to  Judith  Leyster. 

1504.  Maes,  Nicolas.  Old  Woman  Spinning.  Quite  in 
the  best  vein  of  the  painter  as  regards  light  and 
colour.  The  light  is  centralised  and  yet  effectively 
distributed,  as  shown,  for  instance,  in  the  jugs 


* 


34  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

hanging  on  the  wall.  The  shadows  are  darkened 
to  balance  the  light.  The  colour  is  rich  in  the  table- 
cloth and  costume.  An  early  Rembrandtesque 
Maes.     See  also  the  same  theme  in  No.  1503. 

1501.    Asking    a    Blessing.      Sometimes    called    the 

*       Prayer  without  End.     A   little   laboured   in   the 

handling.  All  the  surfaces  are  too  smooth,  per- 
haps. The  light  is  forced,  but  with  some  effect, 
and  the  colour  is  not  bad  though  sacrificed  to  the 
light.  The  bread  and  table  utensils  are  realisti- 
cally given.  An  early  Maes,  and  usually  regarded 
as  his  masterpiece,  but  he  painted  some  excellent 
early  portraits,  now  for  the  most  part  assigned  to 
Rembrandt. 

1502.   Dreaming,     It  is  too  brick-red  in  colour  and 

the  lighting  is  not  true.  There  is  no  recognition 
of  values  in  the  colours.  From  one  end  of  the 
picture  to  the  other,  there  is  practically  the  same 
value  in  every  red  tone.  The  peaches  and  the 
door  seem  as  important  as  the  flesh  colour,  and  they 
are  of  the  same  texture. 

Master  of  the  Death  of  the  Virgin.  See  Cleve, 
Juste  van. 

1540.    Mesdach,  Solotnon.     Portrait  of  Pergens.     One 

of  half  a  dozen  hard  and  literal  portraits  by 
Mesdach  that  are  exceedingly  honest,  if  laboured, 
endeavours.  The  details  of  the  costumes,  as  in 
Nos.  1542  and  1546,  are  interesting. 

1554.  Metsu,  Gabriel.  The  Old  Toper,  A  good  rep- 
resentative Metsu  in  his  more  painter-like,  as 
distinguished  from  his  popular,  manner.  Charm- 
ing in  colour  and  very  accurate  in  drawing.  No- 
tice the  hands,  the  mug,  the  barrel. 


MOEYAERT  35 

1529.    Metsys,    Quentin.     Madonna    and   Child.     The 

throne  is  a  mass  of  goldsmith  work,  very  carefully 
wrought,  but  strangely  out  of  drawing — out  of 
perspective.  The  Madonna  and  Child  are  done 
in  the  same  way  as  the  throne — that  is,  with  skill, 
care,  and  smoothness.  But  none  of  them  are  very 
effective  or  carry  well  at  a  distance.  They  are 
not  coarse  enough  in  grain  or  fibre  and  lack 
strength.  It  is  pretty  work  and  somewhat  over- 
wrought. The  landscape  is  rather  good.  Notice 
the  affectation  of  the  hand  holding  the  cherries. 
The  catalogue  calls  it  a  school  work,  but  it  is 
probably  an  old  copy. 

1581.  Mierevelt,  Michiel  Jansz.  Prince  Maurice  of 
Orange.  A  good  full-length  portrait  among  a 
collection  of  historical  portraits,  many  of  them 
hopeless  as  art  and  of  doubtful  authenticity  as 
regards  their  painters.  This  one  has  agreeable 
colour  with  much  detail  of  armour  and  curtains. 

1582.    Prince   Frederick    Henry   of  Orange.     In   the 

same  vein  as  No.  1581,  with  the  face  retouched. 
There  is  too  much  display  of  armour. 

1584.  Jacob  Cats.  Interesting  for  the  sitter,  a  cele- 
brated Dutch  poet.  It  is  done  not  in  a  poetic  or 
romantic  mood  but  in  a  realistic  way.  Probably 
an  excellent  likeness,  but  one  cannot  rave  over 
it  as  art.  There  is  much  work  of  similar  quality 
in  this  gallery. 

1634.  Moeyaert,  Nicolas  Cornelisz.  The  Unworthy 
Guest.  A  good  piece  of  colour  though  a  little  small 
in  handling  and  a  little  smooth  in  surfaces.  It  is 
more  pretty  and  petty  than  forceful.  It  suggests 
a  possible  painter  for  the  Rape  of  Europa  in  the 
Berlin  Gallery  (No.  823),  the  Boy's  Head  in  the 


36  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

Wallace  Collection  (No.  201),  and  a  similar  head  at 
the  Hermitage  (No.  843),  all  of  them  assigned  to 
Rembrandt.  Study  the  head-dress,  the  border  of 
the  robes,  the  white  underdress,  the  pretty  col- 
our. The  picture  was  formerly  attributed  to  Hoog- 
straten. 

1640.  Momper,  Francois  de.  Valkenhof  at  Nime^ 
guen.  A  little  landscape  quite  fine  in  colour  and 
light.  In  a  Rembrandtesque  style  and  "wrongly 
signed  J.  van  Goyen" — to  quote  the  catalogue. 
The  Van  Goyen  look  of  it  is  on  the  surface  only. 
The  signature  was  probably  put  upon  the  picture 
to  deceive. 

1660.  Moreelse,  Paulus.  The  Little  Princess,  Some- 
what pretty  and  far  too  sweet.  It  is  fairly  well 
painted  in  the  costume,  but  the  figure  is  very  flat 
and  the  head  is  over-modelled. 

1661.    The  Pretty   Shepherdess.     With   an   Angelica 

Kauffman  prettiness  about  its  smooth  face  as 
well  as  about  its  colour.  This  is  Moreelse  at  his 
worst,  if  it  be  his  work  at  all.  See  him  in  a  better 
style  at  The  Hague  in  the  portrait  No.  655. 

1674.  Mostaert,  Jan.  Adoration  of  Kings.  Notice 
how  well  the  figures  in  the  foreground  are  drawn 
and  painted.  Also  the  still-life,  the  brocades,  the 
robes.  The  composition  is  divided  by  the  pilaster 
in  the  middle,  and  the  sky  is  not  in  value.  The 
painter  is  thought  by  some  to  be  identical  with 
the  Master  of  Oultremont. 

1688.    Murillo,    Bartolome    Esteban.     Annunciation. 

A  rather  weak  Murillo  and  considerably  repainted 
in  the  bargain.  It  is  another  version  of  the  picture 
in  the  Hospital  of  La  Caridad  at  Seville. 


OSTADE,   ADRIAEN   VAN  37 

1705.    Mytens,     Martinus.     Portrait    of    the    Painter. 

The  head  is  dark  and  forbidding  in  personality 
but  very  decently  painted. 

1718.  Neer,  Aart  van  der.  Landscape.  A  lovely  bit 
of  colour  with  a  picturesque  old  house  at  left,  a 
remarkably  good  tree  in  the  centre,  and  a  warm 
sky  overhead.  It  is  a  signed  picture  and  there  is 
every  reason  to  believe  the  signature  genuine. 

1721a.   Moonlight.     A  rather  inky  moonlight,  but 

the  night  effect  is  there  if  not  its  exact  representa- 
tion. Van  der  Neer  was  one  of  the  early  luminists 
with  fire  and  moonlight,  as  Vermeer  of  Delft  with 
sunlight  and  cloud  light. 

1725.    Netscher,     Caspar.     Lady    Philippina    Stanton. 

One  of  Netscher's  bids  for  immortality  on  the 
strength  of  the  painting  of  a  satin  gown.  The 
result  of  much  effort  is  that  the  dress  has  a  rolled 
silver  or  tin-foil  effect,  not  altogether  attractive. 
And,  of  course,  the  lady  is  only  a  dummy  upon 
which  to  hang  the  dress.  What  a  dreadful  blue 
scarf!  And  how  little  the  lady  belongs  to  the  land- 
scape!   She  is  a  thing  apart  as  regards  the  light. 

1793a.    Orley,  Bernard  van.    Madonna  and  Child.    A 

rather  attractive  picture  attributed  to  Van  Orley 
and  possibly,  but  not  probably,  by  him.  The 
Madonna  has  a  charm  that  borders  on  sweetness. 
The  picture  is  slight  and  slippery. 
1816.  Ostade,  Adriaen  van.  The  Merry  Peasant.  Done 
with  almost  the  freedom  and  breadth  of  a  Brouwer. 
Excellent  in  its  brown  tone  and  its  general  painter's 
quality. 

1821b.    Dancing  Couple.     W\\h  centralised  Hght  and 

good  grouping  as  well  as  easy  painting.     It  is  use- 


38  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

less  to  ask  of  Van  Ostade  anything  more  than  good 
craftsmanship.  He  is  not  a  great  thinker,  and  has 
only  a  painter's  message  about  form  and  colour  to 
deliver. 

1898.  Poorter,  Willem  de.  Solomon  Sacrificing  to 
Idols.  In  the  painter's  pretty  mood  and  rather 
weak  and  sweet  in  colour  as  in  handling.  Poorter 
was  not  always  so  insipid  as  this.  Occasionally  he 
did  forceful  things  that  have  been  assigned  to 
Rembrandt — are  still  so  assigned. 

1909.  Potter,  Paulus.  The  Shepherd's  Hut.  The  spots 
of  whitewash  on  the  cattle  and  tree  trunks  are 
characteristic  of  Potter.  The  trees  in  their 
branches,  the  sky,  and  the  colour  are  less  certainly 
by  his  hand.  The  picture  is  suggestive  of  Isaac 
van  Ostade. 

1911.   Horses  in  a  Field.   The  dark  bay  horse  is  very 

well  painted  for  Potter,  but  there  is  nothing  re- 
markable about  the  picture  except  its  common- 
placeness  and  the  too  apparent  signature  on  the 
fence.  The  sky  and  foliage  are  not  like  Potter's 
work. 

1913.  Cows  in  a  Field.  Not  even  so  crude  and  boy- 
ish a  performance  as  this  can  break  the  Potter 
delusion.  People  will  have  it  that  he  is  a  great 
cattle  painter,  whereas  he  was  merely  a  sometime 
student  of  cow  anatomy  and  never  came  to  per- 
fection with  the  brush.  Where  is  the  good  draw- 
ing, colour,  or  painting  of  this? 

1915.   Landscape  with  Cattle.     This  is  Potter  at  his 

best,  with  a  good  effect  of  sunlight  and  a  landscape 
of  more  than  usual  excellence.  The  trees  are  man- 
nered in  the  trunks  and  in  the  foliage,  and  the 


PYNAS,   JAN  39 

cattle  are  abnormally  hard,  but  all  this  is  to  be  over- 
looked in  favour  of  the  fine  light  and  its  truth  of 
value  in  shadow,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  bull  lying 
down  at  the  right  and  the  cows  in  full  sunlight  at 
the  left.  A  very  good  Potter,  but  not  a  great 
picture,  'per  se.    See  also  No.  1914. 

1910.    Bear  Hunt.     The  composition,  with  the  hard 

and  stuffed  effect  of  the  dogs'  heads  and  mouths 
together  with  the  new  study  in  natural  history  of 
the  dog  climbing  a  tree,  may  be  put  down  to  Potter; 
but  the  surface  has  largely  been  repainted,  as  the 
catalogue  indicates. 

1912.    Orpheus  with  His  Harp.     In  which  the  painter 

has  transferred  the  animals  from  a  menagerie  one 
by  one  to  a  hard  landscape  made  up  out  of  his  head. 
What  false  colour  values  the  different  trees  show 
in  their  foliage!  It  is  an  impossible  Arcadia,  and 
the  Dutch  Orpheus  posed  in  the  centre  does  not 
help  one's  unbelief. 

1920a.    Pourbus,    Pieter.     Portrait    of  a    Young   Man. 

A  strong  type  given  with  much  severity  of  draw- 
ing but  considerable  truth.  Once  ascribed  to  Hol- 
bein with  as  little  accuracy  as  now  to  Pourbus. 
It  is  too  crude  for  either  painter. 

1923a.    Provoost  (Prevost),  Jan.     Madonna  Enthroned. 

It  is  awkward  and  angular  in  drawing,  but  there 
is  unusual  composition  and  good  colour.  Besides, 
the  spirit  of  it  is  true  and  its  feeling  is  sincere. 
The  type  of  the  Madonna  is  neither  Flemish  nor 
French,  but  half-way  between.  The  attribution  is 
questionable. 

1932.    Pynas,    Jan.     Moses    Turning    the    Waters    into 
Blood.     A  strange  pattern,  a  peculiar  arrangement, 


40  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

with  an  odd  Rembrandtesque  landscape.  There  is 
some  good  painting  in  the  figures.  The  colour  is 
agreeable. 

1933.  Ouast,  Pieter  Jansz.  The  Surgeon.  The  man 
with  the  red-brown  cap  is  quite  attractive  in  the 
strong  patches  of  shadow  thrown  across  his  brown 
coat.     By  a  follower  of  Brouwer. 

1974.  Ravesteyn,  Hubert  van.  Still  Life.  A  still- 
life  picture,  with  a  piece  of  paper  on  which  is  print- 
ing that  can  be  read — a  sure  sign  of  excellence  in 
art  with  some.  But  this  is  no  nearer  art  than  the 
bugs  and  flies  and  water  drops  of  the  Dutch  flower 
painters.  Sir  Joshua  had  something  caustic  to  say 
about  cats  and  fiddles  painted  to  be  picked  up  that 
will  apply  here. 

1975a.  Ravesteyn,  Jan  Anthonisz  van.  Frangois 
van  der  Burch.  A  full-length  in  black.  The  fig- 
ure stands  well  and  has  a  good  envelope  of  air. 
The  painting  is  smooth  but  effective. 

2019.  Rembrandt  van  Ryn.  The  Jewish  Bride.  This 
*  picture  was  probably  never  satisfactory  to  the 
painter  and  never  finished.  The  background  was 
evidently  not  carried  as  far  as  the  painter  intended, 
the  hands  are  sketchily  done  and  retouched  in 
spots,  the  surface  is  lumpy  with  paint  put  on  with 
the  thumb  and  palette-knife  and  not  always  effec- 
tively placed.  It,  perhaps,  represents  Rembrandt 
in  his  late  style,  when  his  hand  was  not  so  sure  as 
it  had  been,  and  when  his  handling  was  sometimes 
flaky  but  more  often  heavy  and  lumpy.  The 
colour  is  in  large  masses,  broadly  seen  and  treated, 
yet  somewhat  hot.  It  is  by  no  means  an  inhar- 
monious colour  scheme — on  the  contrary,  colour  is 
the  strong  feature  of  the  picture.     The  red  is  quite 


** 


REMBRANDT  41 

splendid.  And  even  at  this  late  stage  the  shadows 
are  still  luminous.  Said  to  be  Rembrandt's  son 
Titus  and  his  bride,  but  without  warrant  of  any 
kind  for  the  statement. 
2023.  Portrait  of  Elizabeth  Bas.  A  celebrated  por- 
trait put  down  to  Rembrandt's  early  grey  period. 
It  is  a  fine  type  of  Dutch  womanhood,  dressed  in 
black  with  fur-lined  robe,  white  ruff,  and  white 
cap.  The  face  is  keenly  seen.  The  eyes,  forehead, 
nose,  cheeks,  chin  are  quite  right  in  their  drawing 
or  at  least  right  enough.  It  is  a  good  piece  of 
modelling  all  through,  but  is  now  hurt  by  too  much 
cleaning  of  the  surface  and  by  repainting,  especially 
in  the  hands.  That,  however,  will  not  account  for 
a  blackish  feeling  in  the  shadows  of  the  ruff,  face, 
and  hands — the  face  itself  showing  a  little  sooti- 
ness  about  it.  The  blackness  may  have  come  from 
some  dark  underbasing.  The  present  condition  of 
the  hands  would  indicate  this.  Some  cleaning 
and  retouching  might  account  for  a  less  free  sur- 
face than  Rembrandt  usually  painted.  The  han- 
dling looks  thin  in  spots.  An  excellent  work,  how- 
ever, in  a  sober,  serious  vein,  with  a  large  view  of 
the  subject  and  much  simplicity  and  directness 
in  its  setting  forth.  This  is  the  kind  of  portraiture 
that  Maes  and  Backer  and  Bol  imitated  very 
closely  at  one  time.  Perhaps  that  has  led  a  modern 
critic  to  declare  this  portrait  not  a  genuine  Rem- 
brandt but  a  Bol  (see  Burlington  Magazine,  for 
March,  1912).  But  one  finds  difficulty  in  agree- 
ing with  such  an  opinion.  Nothing  else  of  Bol's 
known  at  the  present  time  lives  up  to  this  portrait. 
It  is  too  large  in  feeling,  too  sure  in  drawing,  too 
well  set,  too  firm  for  Bol.  But  it  certainly  is  not 
well  handled  for  Rembrandt,  nor  is  it  altogether 


42  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

like  him  in  the  quahty  of  the  Hght.  However,  the 
fact  should  not  be  lost  sight  of  that  here  before 
you  is  a  masterpiece  of  Dutch  portraiture,  call  it 
by  what  painter's  name  you  will. 
2016.  The  Night  Watch.  This  is  not  a  night  pic- 
ture, but  is  supposed  to  represent  full  sunlight. 
The  yellow  tone  of  the  varnish,  much  repainting, 
and  Rembrandt's  limited  scheme  of  illumination 
have  all  combined  to  give  it  a  torchlight  effect  and 
early  led  the  French  to  speak  of  it  as  the  "  Ronde 
de  Nuit.''  Reynolds  accepted  the  mistake  and 
translated  the  name  into  the  Night  Watch.  It  is 
a  sortie  of  the  Frans  Banning  Cocq  Shooting  Com- 
pany from  their  quarters  in  broad  daylight.  It 
was  painted  in  1642,  was  afterward  cut  down  at 
the  sides  and  top,  has  been  much  repainted,  and  re- 
cently was  slashed  with  a  knife  by  a  wandering 
fool  in  the  gallery.  But,  in  spite  of  all  its  damage, 
it  still  has  wonderful  force,  interest,  mystery. 
The  illumination  is  its  weakness  and  its  strength. 
The  light  does  not  come  from  the  sky  and  is  not 
all-pervading,  but,  on  the  contrary,  comes  directly 
from  the  individual  heads  and  figures,  as  though 
a  series  of  individual  portraits  had  been  separately 
painted  and  brought  together  on  one  canvas. 
Each  head  has  an  illumination  of  its  own,  as  though 
each  had  in  turn  been  lighted  by  the  flash  of  a  gig- 
lamp  and  painted  under  that  condition.  The  high 
lights  on  the  faces  are  followed  by  swift  degradation 
into  deep  shadows  on  the  neck  or  hat  or  coat. 
The  result  is  strong  individual  heads,  but  no  oneness 
of  illumination,  and  not  too  much  unity  of  effect  in 
the  picture.  The  only  things  that  hold  the  picture 
together  are  colour,  grouping,  and  atmosphere. 
But  the  colour  is  as  unmercifully  sacrificed  as  is  the 


REMBRANDT  43 

light.  In  shadow  it  is  nearly  obliterated;  in  full 
light  it  blazes.  Nevertheless,  it  is  wonderfully  fine. 
The  splendid  buff  of  Lieutenant  Ruytenberg  is 
repeated  in  the  little  girl  with  the  cock  hanging 
at  her  girdle,  and  again,  but  more  faintly,  in  the 
drum  at  the  right,  and  in  the  helmet  of  the  last 
man  at  the  left.  The  red  sash  of  Captain  Cocq 
is  repeated  in  the  figures  at  the  right  and  left. 
What  a  wonderful  medley  of  colour  and  arbitrarily 
contrasted  lights  it  is,  with  the  lieutenant's  gorget 
of  steel,  white  feather,  buff  coat  and  boots,  the 
captain's  costume  of  black  and  red,  the  greenish 
cape  of  the  little  girl,  the  subordinated  colour  of  the 
standard-bearer,  and  the  many  repeated  notes  on 
either  side!  And  what  wonderful  portrait  heads 
these  are  I  Some  of  them  are  ragged,  mealy,  and 
thumbed,  as  are  also  the  hands;  but  this  has 
come  about  through  cleaning  and  repainting. 
There  is  hardly  an  inch  of  the  canvas  intact,  the 
heads  are  all  damaged,  but  they  are  still  strong. 
And  those  in  the  background  as  they  come  forward, 
peering  out  of  the  gloom  and  shadow,  how  mys- 
terious they  are!  The  depth  of  the  background 
still  shows  through  the  dim  lighting  and  out  of 
it  emerge  here  and  there  heads,  figures,  swaying 
lances,  gleaming  halberds,  half-seen  arches,  parts 
of  columns.  What  life  there  is  in  the  second  tier 
of  portraits!  And  what  movement  and  action 
about  all  the  figures !  Notice  the  poetry  of  motion 
in  the  captain  and  the  lieutenant.  How  well  they 
move;  how  firmly  their  feet  strike  the  ground! 
Your  attention  will  be  called  to  the  shadow  of 
the  captain's  hand  on  the  lieutenant's  coat,  but 
never  mind  it.  Look  at  the  movement,  and  con- 
sider the  disarray,  the  turmoil,  the  realistic  unex- 


44  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

pectedness  of  the  whole  group.  Look  at  the  run- 
ning boy  at  the  far  left,  or  the  drummer  coming  in 
from  the  right,  or  the  man  with  the  gun  back  of 
the  lieutenant.  Finally,  consider  it  as  a  mere 
pattern  of  colour  interwoven  with  light  and  shade, 
upon  which  appear  these  wonderful  portraits  of  a 
shooting  company  in  unpremeditated  movement. 
Is  it  not  a  wonder  of  both  realism  and  decoration 
in  one?  For  all  its  sad  condition,  its  hardened 
outlines,  darkened  shadows,  hot  flesh,  and  raw 
surface;  for  all  its  positive  sins  against  the  truth 
of  light,  it  is  an  extraordinary  masterpiece  and  de- 
serves its  world-wide  fame. 

2024.   The  Toilet.     This  was  once  supposed  to  be 

a  Narcissus,  but  is  now  put  down  as  a  Young 
Woman  at  Her  Toilet.  The  picture  is  good  in  col- 
our and  has  a  certain  amount  of  force  in  its  light- 
ing, but  there  is  no  particular  reason  for  thinking 
it  by  Rembrandt.  The  ill-drawn  figure  alone  would 
be  against  such  a  belief.  Rembrandt's  drawing  was 
naturalistic,  not  academic,  but  this  figure  shows 
neither  method  to  advantage. 

2022.  Portrait  of  a  Young  Lady  of  Rank.  The  por- 
trait is  much  cleaned,  and  the  finer  touches  of  the 
brush  (the  final  surface  modellings)  are  lost;  but 
Rembrandt  still  shows  in  the  hand,  the  dress,  and 
the  face.  Notice  the  colour  in  the  fiesh  of  the 
hand.  The  robe  is  sharply  but  accurately  drawn, 
and  the  detail  of  earrings,  lace,  and  pearls  is  care- 
fully given.  Done  late  in  the  painter's  grey  period. 
Retouched,  perhaps,  in  the  hair  and  the  hand.^ 

2020.  The  Stone  Bridge.  A  very  good  little  land- 
scape that  Hercules  Seghers  or  an  even  more 
modern  painter  might  have  done  as  readily  as 


REMBRANDT  45 

Rembrandt.  The  Seghers  thunder-cloud  is  there 
in  the  sky,  but  a  modern  might  have  put  it  there. 
As  for  the  sunburst  on  the  central  foliage,  it  is  a 
focussing  of  light  followed  by  many  others  beside 
Rembrandt  and  Seghers.  All  the  school  inherited 
the  tradition  of  centralised  light  surrounded  and 
emphasised  by  darks. 

2018.    Anatomical  Lecture  of  Professor  Deyman,     A 

fragment  of  a  picture  hurt  by  fire,  and  since  much 
repainted  and  restored.  It  hardly  represents  Rem- 
brandt in  any  way,  and  is  only  an  interesting  ruin. 

2017.    Syndics  of  the  Cloth  Hall.     Painted  in  1661-2, 

**  and  showing  Rembrandt  in  his  late  manner,  when 
his  handling  had  become  a  little  heavy.  He  now 
wanders  and  feels  for  larger  masses  at  the  ex- 
pense of  detail.  He  is  still  very  powerful,  and  his 
greater  breadth  of  view  at  this  time  is,  perhaps, 
to  be  preferred  to  that  in  his  earlier  and  more 
elaborated  portraits.  How  strong  these  faces! 
Even  the  flattened  one  at  the  back  has  character 
about  it.  What  really  wonderful  characters  they 
are!  And  how  animated  and  co-ordinated  the 
whole  group!  They  are  figuring  up  their  year's 
accounts,  perhaps,  when  some  one  enters  the  room 
and  they  all  look  up.  How  simply  it  is  done! 
Look  at  the  doing  of  the  hats  or  coats  or  white 
linen,  the  mass  of  the  splendid  table-cloth,  the  wall, 
the  shadowy  room  with  the  well-diffused  light. 
What  colour  in  that  cloth!  It  still  fairly  reeks 
with  it,  though  blistered  and  scaled  and  repainted 
in  spots.  This  is  Rembrandt  at  his  height  to  some. 
His  broad  vision,  his  penetration,  his  large  model- 
ling, his  sense  of  colour  and  light  were  never  better 
shown  than  here.     As  for  his  handling,  there  is  no 


46  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

blundering  about  it.  It  bears  no  resemblance  to 
the  ineffective  brush-work  of  pupils,  such  as  Aert 
de  Gelder,  many  of  whose  works  are  put  down  as 
old-age  Rembrandts.  Yet  this  picture  was  painted 
within  half  a  dozen  years  of  his  death.  Did  he  ever 
blunder  with  the  brush  or  have  we  been  fed  on 
fancies  about  him  all  these  years? 

2058.    Rootius,   Albertz.     A  Little   Girl  with  a  Goat. 

This  picture  is  suggestive  of  the  good  workman- 
ship that  prevailed  in  the  Dutch  School,  even  among 
second-rate  painters.  It  is  done  with  knowledge 
and  a  sense  of  colour,  and  the  handling  is  very 
good. 

2067.  Rubens,     Peter    Paul.     Helene    Fourment.    It 

has  been  cleaned  too  much  in  the  throat  and  chest, 
flattened  disagreeably  in  the  forehead,  and  has  some 
old  repainting  in  the  hair  and  sides  of  the  head. 
But  it  is  fairly  effective  and  attractive.  The  eyes 
wander  a  little  and  the  smile  is  a  bit  weary.  No- 
tice how  the  sleeve,  dress,  brooch,  and  chain  are 
done.  Probably  a  repetition  or  a  copy  made  up 
from  the  large  seated  figure  of  Helene  Fourment, 
at  Munich. 

2068.    Portrait  of  Anne  of  Austria.     A  repetition  of 

the  portrait  in  the  Louvre  (No.  2112),  probably 
not  by  Rubens  but  by  some  pupil  in  his  workshop. 
It  has  not  the  handling  of  Rubens. 

2066.    Cimon  and  Pera,     It  is  not  likely  that  this 

picture  was  ever  more  than  a  school  piece.  It  is 
not  well  drawn.  Notice  the  woman's  hands,  the 
man's  neck,  and  the  heads  at  the  window.  As  for 
the  painting,  it  has  probably  been  retouched  in 
the  hair,  but  the  draperies  are  feebly  done  in  a 


RUISDAEL  47 

weak  attempt  at  the  Rubens  facility  of  brush. 
The  colour  has  not  the  Rubens  quality. 
2066a.    Noli  Me  Tangere.     The  head  and  hair  of  the 

*  Magdalen  are  really  superb,  and  those  of  the  Christ 
are  very  well  done.  The  figures  have  been  injured, 
as  notice  in  the  Magdalen's  arms  and  hands,  and 
also  the  neck  and  torso  of  the  Christ.  The  colour 
is  better  in  the  Magdalen's  robes  than  in  those  of 
the  Christ.  The  landscape  was  probably  done  by 
some  pupil  or  collaborator.  The  trees  at  the  left 
are  not  by  Rubens,  nor  the  blue  of  the  distance. 
The  vines  back  of  the  figure  at  the  right  are  more 
believable,  but  not  at  all  wonderful. 

2070.  Ruelles,  Pieter  des.  Convent  of  St.  Agnes, 
Utrecht.  It  is  coarsely  and  sketchily  done,  but  is 
excellent  in  its  handling  and  quite  fine  in  its 
colour.  The  painter  is  unknown  to  fame.  This 
is  his  one  identified  picture. 

2075.  Ruisdael,  Jacob  van.  Landscape.  A  large  Ruis- 
dael  in  his  conventional  manner,  with  his  studio 
waterfall,  white  birch,  cloudy  sky,  and  distant 
church  tower.  It  is  fairly  good  in  general  effect, 
but  wanting  in  any  positive  sense  of  reality  or 
strong  feeling  for  decorative  colour.  One  grows  a 
little  weary  of  the  reiteration  of  this  one  note. 

2074.    The    Mill   Near    Wyk-by-Duurstede.     This   is 

*  the  same  conventional  Ruisdael  scheme  of  greys 
(not  true  of  Holland  or  of  any  other  country  under 
the  sun)  but  with  a  subject  different  from  Ruisdael's 
usual  performance,  in  which  some  local  truth  of 
mill  and  buildings  is  given.  A  diagonal  composi- 
tion with  a  good  sky  and  a  flat  river  view. 

2078.    Landscape.     The  Ruisdael  formula  varied  a 

little  by  the  introduction  of  the  cottage  at  the  left 


48  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

and  some  rocks  at  the  right.  The  same  slate- 
grey  colour  scheme,  with  carelessly  done  sky  and 
clouds.  One  wonders  if  Ruisdael  was  such  an  ar- 
rant painter  of  pot-boilers,  or  if  all  the  by-products 
of  his  school  have  been  put  under  his  name.  It  is 
the  same  wonder  that  one  has  about  many  another 
celebrity  in  art. 

2076.    Waterfall.     A  good  routine  Ruisdael  with  a 

rather  romantic  subject  and  acceptable  composi- 
tion. The  sky  and  distant  hills  happen  to  be 
better  this  time  than  usual. 

2084a.    Ruysdael,    Salomon    van.    Landscape.    It   is 

large  in  size  rather  than  in  quality.  The  sky  and 
the  trees  are  thin,  and  one  is  hardly  more  impressed 
by  the  thickness  of  the  earth. 

2082a.   Landscape.     This  is  a  rather  delicate  and 

attractive  picture,  with  some  sentiment  about  it 
which  scarcely  speaks  for  Salomon  van  Ruysdael. 

2084.   Landscape.     This  is  a  fairly  good  landscape 

for  Salomon  van  Ruysdael,  who  was  by  no  means 
so  good  a  painter  as  Jacob.  Here  he  is  much  better 
than  usual,  without  rising  to  any  beetling  height. 
It  is  a  diagonal  composition  with  good  light  and 
warm  colouring. 

2099.  Saenredam,  Pieter  Jansz.  The  Maria  Church 
in  Utrecht.  A  fine  architectural  drawing  with  a 
large  feeling  of  the  spaciousness  of  the  church  and 
also  with  good  light  and  colour. 

2189.    Scorel,  Jan  van.    Mary  Magdalen.    The  figure 

*        is  rubbed  smooth  in  the  face  and  hands  but  still 

holds  its  drawing  fairly  well.     The  cloth  across  the 

lap  is  uneasy  and  overloaded  with  pattern,  but  fine 

in  colour.     A  Hebrew  inscription  is  woven  into  the 


SCOREL,  JAN  VAN  49 

yoke  of  the  dress.  The  distant  landscape  seems 
out  of  tone  with  the  foreground,  and  the  mountain 
forms,  especially  at  the  extreme  left,  are  quite  im- 
possible, yet  they  seem  not  obtrusive  or  disturb- 
ing. The  tree  at  the  right  is  excellent.  The  pic- 
ture has  not  only  much  charm  but  decided  strength. 
It  is  impressive,  positive,  individual,  in  a  class  by 
itself.  Scorel,  and  his  pupil  Heemskerck,  were  both 
painters  of  power. 

2190.    Solomon  and  the  Queen  of  Sheha.     This  pic- 

*  ture  is  better  held  together  than,  say.  No.  2191, 
and  is  very  fine  in  line  and  colour,  as,  for  instance, 
in  the  woman  at  the  left  with  the  patterned  robe 
or  the  central  figures.  Notice  the  kneeling  figure 
of  the  queen  or  the  back  of  the  warrior  at  the  right. 
A  most  interesting  picture,  and  full  of  masterful 
drawing,  but  now,  unfortunately,  much  hurt  by 
cleaning  and  repainting.  This  picture,  with  No. 
2191,  is  thought  by  some  to  be  by  Lucas  de  Heere. 

2191.    Bathsheba.     This  is  a  picture  of  strange  at- 

*  traction  though  radically  deficient  in  some  features 
— perhaps  purposely  so.  The  foreground,  for  ex- 
ample, is  too  dark  for  the  background.  They  do 
not  go  together  or  make  a  unit.  Again,  the  moun- 
tain forms  in  the  distance  are  as  fantastic  as  those 
of  Bosch  or  Patinir.  Bathsheba  herself  is  beauti- 
ful in  relief  against  the  dark  wood,  and  the  repeated 
lines  of  her  figure  in  the  statues  right  and  left  are 
very  effective.  The  robes  of  white  are  also  re- 
peated far  over  to  the  right  in  the  light-robed 
figures.  The  picture  might  be  cut  in  two,  perpen- 
dicularly, for  there  are  really  two  pictures  on  the 
panel.  But  after  all  the  fault-finding  one  comes 
back  to  it  with  renewed  pleasure.     It  is  no  weak 


50  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

affair  at  least.  The  attribution  has  been  ques- 
tioned, but  a  more  probable  ascription  has  not  been 
furnished. 

2242.  Steen,  Jan.  The  Scullery  Maid.  Quite  an  in- 
teresting little  picture,  though  a  bit  smooth  and 
approximating  the  work  of  such  lesser  Dutchmen 
as  Van  Mieris  in  its  surface  and  in  its  rendering 
of  small  detail.  No.  2243  is  probably  some  sort 
of  school  piece. 

2237.    The    Feast    of    St,  Nicholas.     A    well-known 

Steen,  but  not  his  best  effort  in  light,  colour,  or 
painting.  The  picture  has  some  animation  and 
bustle  about  it.  The  composition  is  centralised 
about  the  child  with  the  toys.  There  is  good 
painting  in  the  dresses  and  the  room  is  well  enough 
done.     The  hands  are  a  little  hurt  by  repainting. 

2245.    The  Parrot's  Cage.     Wherein  the  cage  is  just 

as  well  done  as  the  figures — as  it  should  be  in  pic- 
tures of  this  sort.  Interiors  were  all  of  a  piece 
with  Steen  and  figures  often  counted  for  no  more 
than  furniture.  Notice  that  the  pewter  plate  at  the 
left  is  better  done  than  the  cook's  face  above  it  or 
the  three  faces  at  the  right.  A  better  Steen  than 
the  larger  No.  2237. 

2246.    The  Sick  Lady.     Here  is  Steen  in  a  tender 

mood,  doing  a  sick-room  scene  without  jest  or 
grossness.  There  is  a  nice  feeling  about  the  patient 
with  her  head  on  a  pillow  and  the  helpless  look  in 
her  eyes.  The  lady  is  the  picture.  The  man  is 
more  commonplace  but  holds  his  place  very  well. 
The  foreground  is  very  elaborately  finished,  but 
the  background  has  undergone  a  change  in  the 
surface  of  the  bed,  wall,  and  lute,  for  instance.  It 
looks  as  though  the  change  had  been  brought  about 


* 


STEEN,  JAN  51 

by  rash  cleaning  with  alcohol.  Apparently  a  harsh 
start  had  been  made  and  then  stopped  because  of 
the  injury  produced.  Compare  the  lute  on  the 
wall  with  the  untouched  clock  at  the  right.  The 
blue  table-cloth  has  suffered  also. 

2238.    The  Happy  Family.     A  large  and  well-held- 

together  picture,  fine  in  its  tone  and  good  in  its 
colour,  though  it  might  be  thought  a  trifle  warm. 
Notice  the  little  girl  and  the  child  in  the  fore- 
ground; also  the  still-life,  the  jug  and  pans  on  the 
floor.  The  background  is  carelessly  put  in,  as  are 
also  the  boy  and  the  window  at  the  left.  The 
group  is  doing  something — every  member  of  it — 
as  though  the  curtain  were  about  to  rise  on  the 
first  act.  Notice  the  drawing  of  the  head,  neck, 
and  bust  of  the  mother. 

2234.    After  a  Drinking  Bout.     An  excellent  Steen, 

*       in  his  smoother  manner,  but  with  perfect  drawing 

and  handling  from  start  to  finish.  And  given  with 
evident  zest,  as  though  the  subject  appealed  to  the 
painter.  This  picture  and  the  Bad  Company  (No. 
2580)  in  the  Louvre  are  done  with  more  painter's 
pride  and  pleasure  than  almost  any  other  works 
of  Steen.  Notice  the  drawing  of  the  drunken 
woman,  the  drag  of  the  dress  across  the  knees, 
the  stocking  foot,  the  loose  arm,  the  helpless  head. 
And  what  drawing  and  colouring  in  the  wretched 
old  man!  What  life  in  the  subordinated  ruffians 
at  the  back!  A  capital  picture,  over-smooth  in  the 
surface  and  varnished  too  heavily,  but  capital, 
nevertheless. 

2235.    The  Prince's  Birthday.     A  smooth  picture  in 

its  surface,  with  many  figures  in  a  crowded  composi- 
tion.    Somewhat  dull  in  the  light  and  brown  in 


52  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

colour,  but  well  painted.  The  room  is  given  with 
atmospheric  envelope,  and  the  people  well  placed. 

2244.    The   Dancing   Lesson.     A   very   good   Steen, 

*  painted  with  freedom  and  gusto  as  well  as  cer- 
tainty. The  playing  girl  is  charming  in  colour. 
And  how  very  easily  her  dress  and  hair  are  hit  off! 
The  boy  at  left  is  beautifully  done  also.  Every 
object  is  in  place  and  in  proper  relationship,  one 
to  another,  as  regards  light  and  colour.  Even  the 
cat  is  dragged  into  the  colour  scheme  as  into  the 
dancing  lesson. 

2250.   Pilgrims  at  Emntaus.     A  strange  Steen,  with 

the  characters  not  sad  or  suffering,  but  merely  dull 
and  sleepy.  The  picture  is  hot  in  colour  and  not 
very  free  in  handling.  The  head  of  Christ  at  the 
side  hardly  produces  an  illusion,  and  the  back- 
ground is  not  substantial  enough.     Did  Steen  do  it? 

2282a.  Sweerts,  Michiel.  Playing  at  Draughts.  This 
picture  has  some  skilful  drawing  and  rather  broad, 
flat  painting,  but  it  is  not  to  be  compared  with  the 
fine  work  attributed  to  Sweerts  in  the  Munich 
Gallery  (No.  390).  It  seems  hardly  possible  that 
they  can  be  by  the  same  hand,  so  superior  is  the 
latter  to  this  No.  2282a. 

2298b.    Teniers  the  Younger,  David.    Friendly  Chat. 

An  excellent  piece  of  brush-work — excellent  be- 
cause it  is  not  only  easily  done  but  surely,  effec- 
tively done.  Every  stroke  counts.  Look  closely 
at  it. 

570.  Terborch,  Gerard.  Paternal  Advice.  This  pic- 
ture is  somewhat  injured  in  the  background  and 
repainted  in  the  hands  and  elsewhere.  The  satin 
gown  is  not  badly  done,  nor  the  table  at  the  left. 


TERBORCH  63 

nor  the  chairs.  The  bed  is  only  suggested  and 
has  now  darkened,  as  has  also  the  wall.  The  face 
of  the  second  figure,  drinking  from  the  glass,  has 
been  flattened  by  cleaning  or  retouching  and  the 
glass  itself  almost  obliterated.  Another  version 
of  this  picture  is  at  Berlin  (No.  791),  without  the 
dog,  which  here  does  not  help  out  the  empty  space 
at  the  right  and  might  advantageously  have  been 
omitted. 

5681  The    Painter    and   His    Wife{?).     Two   small 

569  J  pictures  of  indifferent  value.  The  faces,  hands, 
and  arms  are  rather  poor  in  drawing  and  tortured 
in  handling — something  unusual  for  Terborch. 
The  pictures  are  on  copper,  and  are  probably  not 
retouched  or  repainted  but  ineffectively  handled 
in  the  first  instance.  They  have  an  uncomfortable 
glitter  about  them  which  makes  one  wonder  if 
they  are  all  they  pretend  to  be — if,  indeed,  they 
are  by  Terborch. 

569a.    A  Family  Scene.     There  is  some  atmosphere 

about  it  but  little  unity  of  composition.  It  is  a 
scattered  piece,  well  painted  in  parts,  as,  for  in- 
stance, in  the  costumes,  but  giving  no  striking 
indication  of  having  been  painted  by  Terborch. 
It  may  be  his  work,  though  the  drawing  and  han- 
dling are  coarse  for  him.  Look  at  the  hands  and 
at  the  man's  eyes  and  brows. 

573a  1  Portraits    of    Frangois    de    Vicq    and    Wife, 

573b  J  Very  patrician  in  type,  with  much  nobility  of 
*  presence,  and  the  lady  possessed  of  great  charm. 
Beautiful  portraits  if,  perhaps,  not  the  best  that 
Terborch  did.  They  leave  little  to  be  desired. 
The  black  and  white  is  varied  by  the  steel-blue  of 
the  table-cloth  and  by  the  blue  shadows  on  the 


54  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

linen.  Notice  the  beauty  of  the  surface  in  the  flat 
monotone  of  the  background.  The  lady's  hands 
a  little  injured  by  cleaning. 

573.    Helena  van  der  Schalcke,     A  very  naive  child 

in  white — sharply  pronounced  as  a  note  of  white 
on  black  touched  by  colour.  But,  like  its  com- 
panion portraits  (Nos.  571,  572),  it  has  no  pro- 
nounced Terborch  touch  or  quality  about  it.  Yet 
it  has  decided  charm  of  presence.  It  is  by  some 
Terborch  follower. 

574  1  Portrait    of   a    Man    and    Wife.     The    figures 

575  J  stand  well  and  wear  their  costumes  easily,  but  they 

are  not  so  fine  as  the  De  Vicq  portraits  (Nos.  573a, 
573b).  The  lady's  dress  in  its  light  colour  detracts 
from  the  head  a  bit.  There  is  good  drawing  in 
both  portraits,  but  they  have  been  hurt  by  clean- 
ing and  some  retouching.  Moreover,  the  back- 
grounds now  come  forward  and  compress  the  fig- 
ures with  an  opaque  grey  that  is  not  pleasant. 

571  1 Portraits  of   Van   Schalcke  and  Wife,     Com- 

572  J  pare  these  portraits  with  Nos.  573a  and  573b,  and 

you  will  immediately  notice  a  difference  due  to 
something  more  than  cleaning  or  restoration.  They 
are  inferior  work  and  probably  by  some  Terborch 
follower.  Notice  the  lady's  ruff,  mouth,  chin,  hands 
for  their  poor  drawing  and  painting. 

2446.   Velde,  Adriaen  van  de.     The  Artist  and  Family. 

A  large  landscape,  with  figures  not  well  done,  but 
occupying  their  place  in  the  landscape  without 
friction.  The  nurse  and  baby  at  the  left  are  a 
little  spotty  but  amusing.  What  little  light  on 
earth  from  a  blue  sky  overhead!  All  the  Dutch 
landscapists  seem  deficient  in  their  intensity  of 


VERMEER  OF  DELFT  55 

sunlight,  save  those  Hke  De  Hooch,  who  portrayed 
it  in  interiors  by  contrast  with  shadow. 

2448.    The  Hut.     With  a  fine  sky  and  clouds  and  a 

good  hillside  and  tree  effect.  The  light  is  excel- 
lent and  in  accord  with  its  reverse — shadow.  An 
exceptionally  fine  landscape  for  Adriaen  van  de 
Velde  to  have  painted. 

2479.    Velde  the  Younger,  Willem  van  de.    A  Gale. 

A  somewhat  overdone  attempt  at  a  heavy  sea,  with 
much  spindrift  and  scud  flying  from  the  wave- 
crests.  The  light  is  centralised  and  the  colour 
is  grey-brown  bordering  on  the  blackish  in  the 
shadows.  The  clouds  at  the  left  somewhat  fan- 
tastic. 

2474.  Near  the  Coast.  A  calm  sea,  more  interest- 
ing in  the  handling  than  the  stormy  sea  (No.  2479). 
It  has  an  attractive  silver-grey  envelope.  But  the 
Dutch  sea  painters  got  as  little  colour  out  of  the 
sea  as  the  landscapists  out  of  trees,  streams,  and 
meadows.     Nature  was  a  grey  affair  to  all  of  them. 

2478.    — — The  Cannon  Shot.     This  is  Van  de  Velde  at 

*  his  best,  with  a  smooth  sea,  drooping  sails,  and  a 
cloud  of  smoke  very  realistically  done.  The  ripples 
of  the  water  are  somewhat  regular.  The  ship  is 
well  given  in  bulk  and  weight.  The  sky  is  stained, 
but  this  is  not  very  obtrusive. 

2527.    Vermeer   (or  Van  der   Meer)   of  Delft,   Jan. 

*  Young  Woman  Reading  a  Letter.  There  has  been 
some  drastic  cleaning  of  the  wall  as  well  as  of  the 
lady's  face,  hands,  arm,  and  blue  coat;  but  the 
picture  still  remains  a  thing  of  beauty  in  its  light, 
its  blue  colour  scheme,  and  its  fine  drawing.     It  is 


56  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

also  a  charming  picture  in  the  quiet  poise  of  the 
figure,  its  bulk  in  the  given  space,  its  sense  of  truth, 
as  well  as  its  picturesque  value.  The  bow  over 
the  ear  is  darkened,  as  well  as  the  shadow  of  the 
table-cloth.  Notice  the  drawing  of  the  chair  at 
the  right,  the  map  on  the  wall,  the  dress.  Notice 
also  the  blue  shadows  as  well  as  the  blue  light. 
The  whole  picture  is  a  different  tale  of  the  brush 
from  No.  2528.  This  is  the  real  Vermeer;  the 
other  is  the  pseudo- Vermeer. 

2528.   The   Letter.     A    hard,   glassy   picture   of   a 

quality  that  would  do  no  credit  to  a  Netscher  or 
even  a  Van  der  Werff .  The  room  is  cramped  and 
ill  drawn,  the  door-jambs  and  picture-frames  are 
rigid  with  streaked  high  lights,  the  curtain  and 
sofa  back  are  extravagantly  pronounced  in  pat- 
terns and  hard  and  flat  in  rendering.  The  figures 
again  are  hard  in  drawing  and  sharp  in  light.  The 
lady  is  seated  upon  nothing,  has  an  impossible  flat 
lap  upon  which  the  lute  is  supposed  to  rest,  and 
has  high  lights  in  her  eyes,  her  earrings,  her  pearls, 
all  of  the  same  intensity  and  quality.  The  high 
lights  in  the  nails  of  the  chair  or  bench  are  dabs 
of  the  same  white.  The  whites  everywhere  are 
crude,  spotty,  lacking  in  quality.  And  what  an 
absence  of  air!  What  airless  pictures  on  the  wall 
and  what  a  map  at  the  left!  The  whole  picture 
may  be  questioned.  It  is  possibly  Vermeer  in  de- 
cline, when  his  method  may  have  become  hard  and 
mechanical,  but  it  is  just  as  likely  jo  be  the  work 
of  an  imitator  of  the  master,  some  Hoogstraten  of 
the  brush.  It  is  not  possible  that  the  painter  of 
No.  2527  in  this  gallery  or  No.  912b  at  Berlin 
or  No.  1336  at  Dresden  also  did  this  No.  2528  or 
the  No.  625  at  The  Hague  or  the  Nos.  1383  and 


VERMEER  OF  DELFT  57 

2568  in  the  National  Gallery,  London.     We  meet 
with  the  pseudo-Vermeer  elsewhere. 

2528a.   The  Cook.    Originally  an  excellent  Vermeer, 

*  with  a  fine  robust  figure  in  yellow,  blue,  and  red 
that  stands  well,  is  well  rounded,  and  belongs  in 
the  room.  The  light  comes  in  from  the  window 
and  is  distributed  through  the  room  effectively  and 
not  too  arbitrarily.  The  picture  is  well  drawn  and 
is  excellent  in  colour.  What  wonderful  work  in  the 
bread  and  jug  on  the  table,  the  basket  on  the  wall, 
the  figure  itself!  How  absolute  it  is!  Unfortu- 
nately, the  picture  has  somehow  suffered  in  its  sur- 
face. It  is  not  probable  that  Vermeer  left  the  wall 
so  light  in  tone  at  the  right  or  so  indefinite  in 
meaning  at  the  bottom,  where  the  base-board  of 
tiles  might  be  construed  to  be  a  distant  view  of 
water.  There  has  also  been  an  exaggerated  dot- 
ting of  the  surface  in  many  places,  as,  for  instance, 
in  the  yellow  dots  on  the  bread,  on  the  handle  of 
the  basket,  or  the  blue  dots  on  the  blue  cloth  and 
dress  or  the  white  dots  on  the  white  head-dress 
and  face.  Modern  painters  of  the  impressionist 
faith  delight  to  claim  this  as  the  first  case  of  pointil- 
lisme  among  the  old  masters,  but  people  of  less 
enthusiasm  regard  it  merely  as  a  mannerism  of  the 
painter  which  is  unduly  exaggerated  in  this  picture. 
He  used  it  in  other  pictures,  and  it  is  apparent  in  the 
celebrated  Delft  landscape  at  The  Hague,  but  one 
fails  to  see  its  effectiveness.  Terborch,  Netscher, 
and  others  employed  it  somewhat.  The  right-hand 
finger  here  is  injured  by  retouching,  also  the  left 
arm  and  hand.  The  picture  is  not  the  best  exam- 
ple of  Vermeer,  but  it  has  great  merit  both  as  rep- 
resentation and  as  decoration.  Compare  it  with 
No.  2528  for  a  violent  contrast. 


58  THE  RIJKS  MUSEUM 

2557a.    Vinckeboons,  David.     The  Hurdy-Gurdy  Man. 

With  capital  grouping  of  a  crowd  and  consider- 
able beauty  in  the  colour.  Loosely  and  carelessly 
drawn  and  easily  painted.  Deficient  drawing  usu- 
ally calls  for  glib  brush-work  to  hide  it. 

2562.  Vlieger,  Simon  de.  River  Scene,  Rather  mo- 
notonous in  its  tone  of  grey,  but  decorative.  It  is 
not  wanting  in  a  generalised  truth  of  water,  air, 
and  sky.  In  De  Vlieger*s  best  style  as  regards  the 
ships  and  the  light  and  shadow  of  the  foreground. 

2561.    Return   of   the   Falconer.     A   fine   bit   of   old 

ruin,  with  a  good  effect  of  light  and  shade  and 
much  excellence  of  colour.  Without  the  animals 
and  figures  the  picture  might  have  passed  muster 
as  a  Rembrandt. 

2573.  Vois,  Arie  de.  The  Merry  Musician.  This  pic- 
ture is  like  No.  2572  by  the  same  painter,  and  both 
of  them  are  smooth,  carefully  done  genre  pieces  of 
good  workmanship,  though  by  no  means  up  to  the 
work  of  Brouwer  or  Adriaen  van  Ostade. 

2595.  Vos,  Maerten  de.  Family  Group.  It  is  very 
well  drawn  and  has  excellent  colour.  Look  at  the 
heads  and  hands.  There  is  some  repainting  and 
too  much  varnishing  about  it. 

2602.    Vries,  Michiel  van.     Old  Rustic  Dwelling.     It  is 

better  than  a  Ruisdael  or  a  Hobbema  because  more 
original  and  less  mannered.  Look  at  the  house 
with  its  fine  colour,  light,  and  shade. 

2616.  Weenix,  Jan.  Dead  Game.  A  decorative  pic- 
ture probably  painted  for  some  baronial  hall  where, 
perhaps,  it  helped  out  the  colour  of  the  room  in 
which  it  was  placed.  The  perspective  effect  at  the 
back  "cuts  through"  the  wall  and  creates  an  illu- 


WYNANTS  59 

sion  which  was,  no  doubt,  thought  wonderful  in 
Weenix's  time. 

2620.  Weenix,  Jan  Baptist.  Dead  Game.  An  excel- 
lent piece  of  painting  in  the  deer  and  dog.  Not 
crowded  by  many  objects,  and  the  better  for  it. 

2671.  Wet  the  Elder,  Jacob  de.  Christ  Blessing  Little 
Children,  A  Rembrandtesque  composition  by  a 
Rembrandt  pupil  of  some  ability.  It  is  good  in 
grouping  as  in  light,  but,  like  most  of  the  pictures 
put  down  to  the  Rembrandt  followers,  it  is  too 
weak,  too  pretty. 

2702.  Woutersz,  Jan.  The  Intendant*s  Office.  Look 
at  the  brutal  strength  of  drawing  in  the  heads  and 
hands,  the  excellent  painting  of  the  costumes,  table, 
and  background.  There  was  no  dearth  of  good 
painters  in  Holland  during  the  blooming  time  of 
Dutch  art. 

2733.  Wynants,  Jan.  Landscape.  The  picture  is  very 
good  in  the  figures  of  the  foreground  and  in  its 
realistic  scrap  of  sand-bank  back  of  them.  A  small 
landscape,  but  much  to  be  preferred  to  Wynants's 
larger  canvases.     See  also  No.  2732. 


INDEX  OF  PICTURES  BY  NUMBERS 


Dutch  School. 


Dutch  School. 


6  >  Aertsen. 

7J 

]l^  \  German  School. 
17g  J 

21.    Cleve. 

43 

43a 

47 

48 

49.   Engelbrechtsen. 

53^ 

54 
151 
175. 

340.    Flemish  School. 
367.    Antolines. 
382.    Asselyn. 
417.    Bakhuysen. 
468.    Berchem. 
493.    Beresteyn. 
514.   Bisschop. 
522.    Bles. 

567.   Bor. 

568 

569 

569a 

570 

571 

572    \  Terborch. 

573 

573a 

573b 

574 

575 


587.    Bosch. 

590c  1 

591    >Both. 

597    J 

627.    Brekelenkam. 

644] 

645  \  Brueghel,  Jan  the  Elder. 

647  J 

657.    Beuckelaer. 

681.   Cappelle. 

7Jl}codde. 

722  1  Cornelisz   van   Oostsa- 

723  j  nen. 
735.  Craey. 
7441 

III    Cuyp,  Aelbert. 

750  J 

768a.  Decker. 

773.   Delff. 

791 
794 
795  \  Dou. 

797 
798. 

g5-}Dyck,Van. 

877.   Eeckhout. 

887.   Ekels  the  Younger. 

894-1 

898 

907 

909 


Elias. 


-) 

>  Everdingen. 


61 


62 


INDEX 


Flinck. 


919.   Fabritius,  B. 

g22^  [  Fabritius,  C. 

925 

926a 

927 

931 

935.   Francken  the  Younger. 

947.   Garofalo. 

950 

950a 

950b 

951 

95lA 

965d 

965e 


Geertgen  tot  Sint  Jans. 


Gelder,  A.  de. 

984a.  Goes,  Van  der. 
989a] 

990  [Goyen,  Van. 

991  J 

1021.   Hackaert. 
1082.   Hals,  Dirck. 
1084- ] 

1091    \  Hals,  Frans. 
1093   J 

1127.   Heemskerck. 

1134 

1135 

1139 

1140 

1143 

1145 

1171.  Heyden,  Van  der. 

1188  I  Hobbema. 
1224.  Hondecoeter. 


Heist,  Van  der. 


1248  1 

1249-  \  Hooch,  P.  de. 

1252  J 

1256  I  H^^ogs^^'aten. 
1315.  Jordaens. 

1350  }^^>^'^^- 

1375.    Koninck,  S. 

1426.    Lastman. 

1452.   Leyden,  Lucas  van. 

1455.   Leyster. 

1501] 

1502  }  Maes. 

1504] 

1529.    Metsys,  Q. 

1540.    Mesdach. 

1554.    Metsu,  Gabriel. 

1581] 

1582  [  Mierevelt. 

1584] 

1634.    Moeyaert. 

1640.    Momper. 

1661  I  ^^^^^^s^- 
1674.    Mostaert. 
1688.    Murillo. 
1705.    Mytens,  M. 

1721a  I  ^^^^»  ^'  van  der. 
1725.    Netscher. 
1793a.  Orley,  B.  van. 

1821b  I  ^^^^^^'  ^-  van. 
1898.   Poorter. 


INDEX 


63 


1909-1 

1913    >  Potter. 

1915    J 

1920a.  Pourbus. 

1923a.  Provoost. 

1932.  Pynas. 

1933.  Quast. 

1974.    Ravesteyn,  H.  van. 

1975a.  Ravesteyn,  J.  A.  van. 

2016- ^ 

2020 

2022  \  Rembrandt. 

2023 

2024 

2058.  Rootius. 

2066 1 

2067  \  Rubens. 

2068] 

2070.  Ruelles,  P. 

2074^ 

2075 

2076 

2078^ 

2082a  1 

2084  >  Ruysdael,  S. 

2084a  J 

2099.   Saenredam. 

2J85-}scoreL 


Steen. 


.  des. 


>  Ruisdael,  J. 


2234 

2235 

2237 

2238 

2242 

2244 

2245 

2246 

2250, 

2282a.  Sweerts 

2298b.  Teniers 

2446 


Velde,  A.  van  de. 


Velde  W.  van  de. 


JVermeer  of  Delft. 

2557a.  Vinckeboons. 

f,^j}viieger. 

2573.  Vois. 

2595.  Vos,  M.  de. 

2602.  Vries. 

2616.  Weenix,  Jan. 

2620.  Weenix,  J.  B. 

2671.  Wet  the  Elder. 

2702.  Woutersz. 

2733.  Wynants. 
N.N.  Dou. 


THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 


NOTE  ON  THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

The  pictures  here  at  The  Hague  were,  for  the  most 
part,  painted  in  Holland  by  Dutch  painters.  It  is  a 
national  collection,  like  the  Rijks  Museum  at  Amster- 
dam, in  that  very  few  foreign  schools  are  represented. 
It  started  from  one  of  the  collections  brought  together 
by  William  V.  At  first  the  pictures  were  placed  in 
the  Mauritshuis,  with  many  odds  and  ends  of  curiosi- 
ties and  antiquities,  and  it  was  not  until  1875  that  the 
whole  building  was  given  over  to  pictures.  By  gift 
and  purchase  the  collection  has  grown  until  to-day  it 
is  a  famous  gallery.  Every  one  goes  to  it  to  see  Paul 
Potter's  Young  Bull,  if  nothing  else.  Unfortunately, 
the  Young  Bull  is  more  popular  than  its  artistic  merit 
would  warrant,  but  there  are  other  equally  famous 
and  much  finer  works  to  make  up  for  it.  There  is, 
for  instance,  the  excellent  Lesson  in  Anatomy,  by 
Rembrandt;  the  View  of  Delft,  by  Vermeer,  one  of 
the  most  precious  landscapes  in  all  the  world;  the 
Young  Girl,  by  Vermeer,  and  the  Diana,  attributed  to 
him — both  of  them  superb  works,  if  somewhat  different 
one  from  the  other;  a  beautiful  Salome,  by  Cornelisz 
van  Oostsanen;  the  majestic  Annunciation,  by  Heems- 
kerck;  two  very  fine  Van  Dycks,  with  works  by  Rubens, 
Hals,  Keyser,  Mierevelt,  Fabritius,  Maes,  and  others. 

67 


68  NOTE  ON  THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

There  are  a  few  Italian  pictures  and  one  or  two  Span- 
ish works,  but  these  are  of  shght  importance. 

The  Mauritshuis  was  never  designed  for  gallery  pur- 
poses, but  it  is,  nevertheless,  fairly  well  fitted  for  the 
limited,  if  choice,  collection  of  pictures  it  holds.  The 
lighting  is  from  side  windows,  and  is  often  exaggerated 
or  exasperating,  but  no  worse,  perhaps,  than  that  of 
other  European  galleries.  The  pictures  are  hung  as 
w^U  as  circumstances  will  admit,  and  the  gallery  is 
well  aired  and,  generally  speaking,  well  kept. 

The  catalogue  in  use  (1913)  is  little  more  than  a 
finding  list,  but  sufficient.  The  unabridged  catalogue 
of  1895,  now  unhappily  out  of  print,  contained  notes 
of  distinct  critical  value.  A  new  edition  of  it  is  prom- 
ised and  will  be  welcomed.  Photographs  of  the  pic- 
tures in  the  collection  are  sold  in  the  gallery,  and 
Hanfstaengl  has  published  a  volume  of  half-tone  re- 
productions of  the  chief  works. 

There  are  some  pictures  in  the  Municipal  Museum 
that  should  be  seen  if  the  student  has  sufficient  time. 
Your  Baedeker  will  point  the  way. 


THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

543.    Backer,  Jacob  Adriaenz.    Portrait  of  a  Man. 

A  portrait  that  was  at  one  time  put  down  to  Fer- 
dinand Bol  and  then  to  Jacob  Lois.  It  perhaps 
belongs  to  Backer's  later  style,  when  he  had  prac- 
tically abandoned  the  Rembrandt  formula  and  had 
become  much  smoother  in  his  surfaces;  but  it 
still  has  a  look  of  Bol  about  it. 

391.  Begeyn,  Abraham  Janz.  The  Quarry.  With 
small  figures  that  are  effective  as  patches  of  colour 
in  a  rather  hot  landscape.  The  quarry  was  evi- 
dently a  study  from  an  actual  scene. 

562.  Brekelenkam,  Quieringh  Gerritz.  Blood  Let- 
ting,  A  picture  rather  careless  in  its  map  and 
background,  and  with  drawing  not  well  under- 
stood, but  satisfactory  in  a  light  scheme  of  colour. 

739.    Bruyn,    Barthel.     Portraits    of   Man    and    Wife. 

They  are  very  ornate  portraits  in  their  coats-of- 
arms,  flowers,  rings,  chains.  Not  so  sturdy  and 
positive  as  Holbein's  work,  but  effective  neverthe- 
less.    Notice  the  hands. 

311.  Galiari,  Carlo.  Adoration  of  Kings.  A  flash  of 
Venetian  colour  in  this  northern  gallery  that  is  not 
to  be  despised.  It  is  rich  and  full  in  its  notes,  even 
though  Carlo  and  not  Paolo  did  it. 

23.  Cornelisz  van  Haarlem,  Cornells.  Peleus  and 
Thetis.  There  is  much  sprawling  about  of  aca- 
demic figures;    but  the  work  is  rather  weak  in 


70  THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

spirit.  Compare  it  with  the  Heemskerck  (Nos. 
51-52)  in  the  next  room  for  the  difference  between 
this  weakness  and  that  strength.  Academic  draw- 
ing of  the  nude  does  not  necessarily  make  art  any 
more  than  the  microscopic  painting  of  peanuts  and 
postage-stamps.  Right  thinking  and  feehng  play 
no  small  part  in  the  total  sum  of  good  painting. 

1.  Cornelisz  van  Oostsanen  (or  Van  Amsterdam), 
*  Jacob.  Salome.  To  be  admired  without  reser- 
vations or  quibblings  about  the  painter  or  worries 
about  repainting.  It  is  a  beautiful  panel  in  almost 
every  way — simple  in  composition  and  with  a 
fine  architectural  framing  that  binds  the  figure  too 
much,  perhaps,  though  this  is  not  marked.  The 
background  is  just  right,  the  figure  superb  in  poise, 
the  robes  fine  in  colour.  The  head-dress  is  the 
key-note  in  the  colour  scheme.  There  is  some  affin- 
ity, slight  though  it  may  be,  between  the  painter  of 
this  picture  and  Herri  met  de  Bles.  The  picture 
has  passed  under  names  as  far  apart  as  Timoteo 
della  Vite  and  Diirer.  Apparently  something  has 
been  painted  out  at  the  sides  of  the  head. 

627.  Cuyp,  Albert.  Fowls.  What  good  colour  and 
good  painting!  Compare  the  fowls  with  those  by 
Hondecoeter  (No.  405).  Cuyp  seems  broader  and 
more  powerful  with  his  brush. 
32.  Dou,  Gerard.  The  Young  Mother.  In  Dou's 
smooth,  porcelain-like  style  and  with  great  detail — 
five  days  to  the  lady's  hand,  a  day  to  each  finger. 
The  window  light  is  effective. 

239.    Dyck,  Anthony  van.     Portrait  of  Pieter  Stevens 

*       (Sheffield?),     A   good   portrait  with  an  unusual 

turn  of  the  head  and  eyes  which  gives  a  romantic 

cast  to  the  sitter.    The  eyes,  brows,  mouth,  and 


* 


FLINCK,  GOVERT  71 

nose  are  done  with  telling  effect.  The  glove  is 
hurt  a  little  as  also  the  face  and  background.  The 
coat-of-arms  is  very  effective. 

240.    Portrait  of  Anna  Wake,  Wife  of  Pieter  Stevens. 

Companion  piece  to  No.  239,  done  at  the  same  time, 
and  perhaps  the  more  effective  portrait.  The  head  is 
well  set  on  the  neck  and  shoulders,  the  ruff  travelling 
around  and  back  of  the  neck  with  truth  and  beauty. 
The  eyes,  nose,  and  forehead  are  well  drawn — the 
last  a  little  hurt  by  cleaning.  The  hair  is  superb 
as  is  also  the  coat-of-arms.  How  well  the  figure 
is  placed  on  the  canvas!  How  noble  the  type  and 
how  easy  the  poise  of  the  figure  I  The  hands  show 
their  black  underbasing. 

242.    Portrait  of  Quentin  Simons.    A  picture  of  some 

distinction  in  the  personality  of  the  sitter  as  well 
as  in  that  of  the  painter.  The  head  and  eyes  are 
precisely  drawn,  the  hands  are  somewhat  academic, 
the  landscape  holds  its  place  fairly  well.  Injured  a 
little  in  the  hands.  Not  a  great  but  a  very  respect- 
able effort. 

605.  Fabritius,  Carel.  The  Linnet.  A  piece  of 
painter's  work  pure  and  simple,  by  the  supposed 
master  of  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft,  and  himself  a 
follower  of  Rembrandt.  It  is  easily  and  surely 
painted,  but  otherwise  there  is  nothing  remarkable 
about  it.  The  picture  is  sometimes  referred  to  as 
though  it  were  a  wonder,  whereas  it  is  only  a  sketchy 
scrap  that  almost  any  good  painter  could  have 
done. 

676.  Flinck,  Govert.  Girl  Near  a  Chair.  A  striking 
picture  in  the  placing  of  white  upon  dark,  but  in 
other  respects  not  remarkable,  though  fairly  well 
drawn  and  painted.     The  scheme  is  like  the  small 


72  THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

child's  portrait  put  down  to  Terborch  in  the  Rijks 
Museum,  Amsterdam  (No.  573),  which  see. 

347.  Fogolino,  Marcello.  Virgin  Enthroned  with 
Child  and  Saints.  An  altar-piece  somewhat  heavy 
in  conception  and  execution,  but  a  handsome  piece 
of  colour.  The  painter's  works  are  not  frequently 
seen.  This  one  is  stained  and  too  much  cleaned. 
It  looks  a  little  odd  among  so  many  Dutch  pictures. 

737.  Gelder,  Aert  de.  The  Temple.  What  a  rich 
piece  of  colour  and  a  good  interior!  The  figures 
are  not  drawn  very  accurately,  but  they  have  bulk, 
presence,  and  movement.  (Not  in  the  catalogue 
of  1910.) 

42 1  Goltzius,    Hendrick.      Mercury,    Hercules,    Mi^ 

43  )  nerva.     Large  upright  canvases  with  academic  fig- 

44  j  ures,  respectable  in  their  drawing  though  not  in- 

spired in  either  their  thinking  or  their  feeling. 

348.  Gossart,  Jan  (Mabuse).  Infant  Christ  and  St. 
John.  As  the  catalogue  sets  forth,  this  is  probably 
a  copy  after  a  lost  Leonardo  da  Vinci,  but  the  copy 
part  of  it  need  not  blind  one's  eyes  to  its  inherent 
beauty.  It  is  good  in  form  and  colour,  with  a  fine 
landscape  at  the  back,  not  by  Leonardo  but  by  the 
copyist.  The  ornaments  at  the  sides  (also  Flem- 
ish) are  perhaps  too  much  in  evidence.  A  charm- 
ing picture,  now  yellowed  by  the  use  of  varnish. 

45.  Govaerts,  Abraham.  A  Forest  Scene.  A  good 
study  of  the  interior  of  a  wood,  after  the  style  of 
Jan  Brueghel  I,  whose  pupil  Govaerts  may  have 
been.  On  a  much  larger  scale  than  Brueghel's 
usual  work,  however. 

551.  Goyen,  Jan  van.  View  of  Dordrecht.  There  is 
a  regularity  in  the  forms  and  movements  of  the 


HALS,    FRANS  73 

waves,  of  the  trees,  of  the  clouds  that  one  usually 
sees  in  Van  Goyen.  The  composition  is  also  Van 
Goyen's  usual  diagonal  arrangement.  The  sky  is 
blustery. 

623.  Hals,  Claes.  Woman  Reading.  The  picture  is 
as  good  in  colour  and  light  as  it  is  bad  in  draw- 
ing. Notice,  for  instance,  the  construction  of  the 
woman's  anatomy  from  hip  to  knee.  It  reminds 
one  of  another  Hals  pupil  in  this  gallery — Judith 
Leyster  (No.  564). 

459  \  Hals,   Frans.     Portrait  of  Jacob  Pietersz  Olycan 

460  J  and  Wife.     Two  portraits  of  a  quality  that  is  me- 

diocre for  Hals.  The  man's  portrait  is  the  freer  of 
the  two.  It  is  a  little  heavy  in  the  shadows  of  the 
ruff  and  a  little  precise  in  drawing.  The  woman's 
portrait  is  hard  in  the  drawing  of  the  nose,  brows, 
and  eyes,  but  has  a  touch  of  colour  about  it  and  a 
good  deal  of  decorative  pattern  in  the  dress.  Her 
left  hand  is  well  drawn.  The  coat-of-arms  appears 
as  a  spot  because  not  quite  true  in  value.  They 
are  not  unlike  the  Van  Beresteyn  portraits  ascribed 
to  Hals  in  the  Louvre. 

618.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  To  be  accepted  with  res- 
ervations. It  is  hard  and  angular  in  hat,  sleeve, 
and  shoulder.  The  face  is  painted  easily  enough, 
but  crudely,  with  no  large  knowledge  of  under- 
lying drawing.  There  are  many  of  these  small 
heads  in  the  various  galleries  put  down  to  Hals 
(as  also  others  to  Rembrandt)  that  have  no  great 
value  and  might  easily  be  sketches,  notes,  or  even 
reduced  copies.  They  are  interesting,  but  not  great 
performances.  This  one  has  a  very  modern  look, 
as  though  done  yesterday,  and  is  a  copy  or  imita- 
tion of  Hals — probably  the  latter. 


74  THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

52.   Heemskerck,  Maerten  van  (Veen).     Wings  of 
*      the  Altar-piece  of  the  Guild  of  Drapers  at  Haarlem. 

The  inside  of  the  wings  has  an  Adoration  of  Shep- 
herds at  the  right  and  an  Adoration  of  Kings  at 
the  left.  Both  panels  are  crowded  with  figures  in 
all  attitudes  and  movements.  The  general  effect 
is  restless  as  regards  the  composition  and  hot  as 
regards  the  colouring.  There  is  much  good  draw- 
ing of  a  hard  quality,  but  with  very  vital  strength 
in  it.  Individual  figures,  robes,  and  colours  are 
to  be  admired,  perhaps,  more  than  the  ensemble,  as, 
for  instances,  at  the  right  the  shepherds  and  woman 
in  yellow,  and  also  the  flying  angels  at  the  top;  at 
the  left,  the  resplendent  yellow-robed  black  king, 
the  Madonna,  and  the  second  king,  also  the  tall, 
patriarchal  figure  of  the  third  king,  above  the 
negro  at  the  left.  The  heads  are  strong  in  char- 
acterisation. Notice  also  the  well-drawn  hands. 
And  what  effective  brush-work  still  shows! 

51.    The  Annunciation.     This  is  the  outside  of  the 

altar  wings,  No.  52.  The  angel  is  at  the  right,  the 
Madonna  at  the  left.  Much  simpler,  and  for  that 
reason  much  better  than  No.  52.  The  Madonna  is 
excellent,  both  in  sentiment  and  in  artistic  feeling. 
The  grey-white  drapery  is  uneasy  but  graceful, 
as  also  the  altar  and  the  architecture.  The  angel 
is  superb  in  drawing,  movement,  and  colouring. 
The  figure  is  colossal  and  not  wanting  in  majesty 
of  presence.  The  feet  and  legs  are  a  little  awk- 
ward, the  drapery  and  hands  good,  the  outline 
very  attractive.  This,  as  with  Heemskerck's  work 
in  general,  is  mannered  and  eccentric,  but  vital 
art  for  all  its  mixture  of  Dutch  individuality  and 
Italian  ideals.  There  is  a  tinge  of  Michelangelo 
in  him.     Both  panels  were  painted  after  his  re- 


** 


* 


HOLBEIN,  HANS  75 

turn  from  Italy.   Somewhat   over-cleaned  and  re- 
painted. 

568  ]  Heist,  Bartolomeus  van  der.    Portraits  of  Man 

569  /  and  Wife.     A  little  dull  in  the  light  on  the  faces, 

but  otherwise  they  are  well-painted  portraits  of 
very  respectable  and  dignified  folk — the  lady  quite 
fine  in  a  raspberry-coloured  gown. 
54.  Portrait  of  Paul  Potter.  A  portrait  very  in- 
teresting because  of  the  sitter,  and  also  because  it 
is  a  positive  and  sterling  portrait  done  with  ease 
and  spirit.  The  method  of  posing  his  subject  with 
the  figure  turned  in  profile  and  the  head  facing  out, 
making  three  spots  of  light,  decreasing  in  size,  of 
the  head,  the  right  hand,  and  then  the  left  hand, 
was  quite  characteristic  of  Van  der  Heist.  Com- 
pare these  features  in  the  so-called  Velasquez 
Admiral  Borro  at  Berlin,  and  see  how  well  they 
agree  with  this  portrait  in  that  respect.  In  other 
respects  they  vary,  and  yet  are  not  opposed. 

53.  Heyden,  Jan  van  der.  Church  of  the  Jesuits 
at  Diisseldorf.  This  picture  looks  a  little  sombre 
after  the  beautiful  view  of  Delft  by  Jan  Vermeer, 
but  in  reality  it  is  a  good  little  work  of  a  painter 
possessed  of  much  charm.  Notice  the  colour  in 
the  buildings  at  the  left  and  their  lift  against  the 
sky.     The  figures  are  by  Adriaen  van  de  Velde. 

275.  Holbein  the  Younger,  Hans.  Portrait  of  a 
Young  Woman.  A  very  charming  picture  both 
in  type  and  technique.  The  outline  of  the  figure 
is  a  little  sharp,  but  truthful;  the  face  a  little 
smooth  but,  again,  truthful.  The  head-dress  and 
brown  coat  against  the  green  ground  are  quite  effec- 
tive, the  hands  are  perhaps  frailer  than  Holbein 
usually  painted,  and  the  flesh  is  more  luminous. 


* 


76  THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

An  unusually  good  portrait,  attributed  at  different 
times  to  Diirer  and  even  Leonardo,  but  possibly 
by  some  one  near  to  Lucas  Cranach — some  one 
following  after  him. 

276.    Robert     Cheseman    with    Falcon.     A    strong 

portrait  as  regards  the  personality  of  the  sitter, 
but  unfortunately  it  has  the  restorer's  hectic  flush 
on  the  face  and  has  also  been  retouched  in  the 
neck,  the  hand,  and  elsewhere.  This  hurts  its 
colour  quality  and  muffles  its  drawing.  The  back- 
ground does  not  keep  its  place  in  relation  to  the 
lettering  or  the  figure.  The  hawk,  too,  and  the  fur 
collar  have  been  gone  over  by  the  restorer's  brush. 
The  final  result  is  not  too  happy. 

277.    Portrait  of  Man  with  Falcon.     The  flesh  is  a 

little  hot,  but  the  man  is  fine  in  character  as  the 
falcon  in  painting.  It  is  carefully  drawn  in  both 
head  and  hand  and  has  a  good  background. 

405.    Hondecoeter,    Gijsbert    d'.     Cock    and   Hens. 

What  a  fine  bit  of  colour  against  a  sky  strong  in 
its  tone  of  blue!  The  bird  in  the  centre  is  well 
painted. 

77.    Keyset,  Thomas  de.     Portrait  of  a  Learned  Man. 

A  dignified  and  determined  looking  Dutchman, 
well  placed  in  an  interior,  seated  and  restful,  but 
perhaps  a  little  too  conscious.  The  background 
has  been  hurt  and  does  not  now  keep  its  place. 

689.    Portrait  of  a  Gentleman.    This  portrait  is  very 

well  done,  though  odd  in  its  patching  of  paint  about 
the  eyes.  The  hat  and  robe  and  ruff  are  rather 
precise.  The  man  is  a  strong  type,  with  a  power- 
ful head  and  good  hands.  There  is  a  sturdy  quality 
about  the  picture  almost  worthy  of  Rembrandt. 


MAES,  NICOLAS  77 

80.  Koninck,  Philips.  Landscape,  It  is  in  the  usual 
style  and  with  the  customary  theme  of  Koninck, 
but  is,  perhaps,  better  than  usual,  because  warmer 
in  light  and  colour.  The  sky  is  very  good.  The 
whole  work  rather  broadly  done. 

36.  Koninck,  Salomon.  Adoration  of  Kings.  This 
picture  is  not  so  far  removed  from  the  Simeon  in 
the  Temple  (No.  145),  in  this  gallery,  as  Koninck 
was  from  Rembrandt.  It  is  not  one  whit  better  or 
worse  than  the  Simeon  picture.  Both  pictures 
show  the  small  mind,  eye,  and  manner  of  treatment 
common  to  Koninck,  Dou,  Poorter,  and  others  of 
their  ilk,  but  not  common  to  Rembrandt.  They 
are  dinner-plate  pictures. 
564.  Leyster,  Judith.  Man  and  Woman.  It  is  good 
in  light  though  it  has  the  very  minimum  of  good 
drawing.  Notice  the  proportions  of  the  woman's 
nether  extremities  from  knee  to  hip.  It  makes  an 
effective  spot,  nevertheless.  Judith  Leyster  was 
an  imitator  of  Hals  and  perhaps  was  influenced 
by  her  husband,  the  painter  Molenaer. 

85.  Lievens,  Jan.  Bust  of  an  Old  Man.  The  head 
is  not  badly  done.  It  is  in  the  style  of  a  number 
of  similar  heads  attributed  to  Rembrandt  in  the 
European  galleries.  It  should  be  kept  in  mind, 
both  for  the  type  (the  model)  and  the  manner  of 
its  doing.  Its  like  will  appear  again  in  unexpected 
places  under  unexpected  names.  Notice  the  pe- 
culiarity of  ploughing  and  scratching  the  wet  paint 
with  the  wooden  end  of  the  brush.  This  was  a 
marked  mannerism  of  Lievens  as  distinguished 
from  Rembrandt. 

717  \  Maes,    Nicolas.     Portrait    of   Cornelis    ten   Hove 

718  J  and  Wife.    Flashy  portraits  which  seem  on  a  par 


78  THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

with  the  pretty  elegance  of  Sir  Peter  Lely.  They 
do  not  show  Maes  to  advantage.  They  are  his 
later  and  more  perfunctory  work,  when  popularity 
and  success  had  about  ruined  him  artistically. 

90,  Portrait  of  a  Man.  This  is  Maes  in  a  differ- 
ent style  from  his  later  works  (Nos.  717  and  718). 
It  is  earlier,  more  exact  in  drawing,  but  somewhat 
velvety,  smooth  in  contours,  soft  in  textures.  The 
portrait  is  not  remarkable,  but  should  be  carried 
in  the  mind  to  Cassel,  where  the  Portrait  of  an 
Architect  (No.  246),  similar  in  style — type,  colour, 
handling,  and  all — will  be  found  ascribed  to  Rem- 
brandt. Even  the  veining  of  the  hands  is  shown 
here  as  there.  After  a  study  of  the  two  portraits, 
any  one  can  draw  an  inference.  One  hand  painted 
them  both,  and  that  hand  was  not  Rembrandt's. 
But,  of  course,  this  Hague  portrait  is  much  weaker 
than  the  one  at  Cassel. 
724.  Meer  of  Haarlem,  Jan  van  der.  Landscape. 
The  tree  is  much  the  best  part  of  it,  though  some- 
what niggled  and  over-elaborated  in  the  foliage. 
This  is  a  better  picture  than  the  average  Ruisdael. 

595.  Memling,  Hans.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  Evidently 
the  portrait  of  a  donor  taken  from  some  altar-piece 
or  possibly  a  part  of  a  diptych.  A  good  head,  with 
Memling  as  its  possible  painter,  though  it  looks 
timid  in  the  drawing  of  the  face,  hands,  and  hair 
and  is  coarse  in  the  clouds.  It  was  once  assigned 
to  Antonello  da  Messina,  where  it  obviously  never 
belonged. 
94.  MetSU,  Gabriel.  A  Company  Making  Music. 
But  for  its  excessively  slippery  handling  this  would 
be  a  picture  of  considerable  merit.  It  is  pretty 
and  light  in  spirit  with  much  insistence  upon  de- 


MOREELSE  79 

tails  and  textures.  Even  the  dog  has  an  oiled  and 
rubbed  look.  But  there  is  some  very  accurate 
drawing  in  it. 
96- 1  Mierevelt,  Michiel  Jansz.  Portraits  of  the 
100  J  House  of  Orange.  Five  small  works  on  copper  of 
considerable  interest  historically.  They  are  prac- 
tically as  their  painter  left  them,  but  whether  that 
painter  was  Mierevelt  or  one  of  his  pupils  can  now 
be  conjectured  only.  In  any  event,  they  are  not 
wonderful  as  art.     They  have  the  look  of  copies. 

729  \  Mijn,  Gerard t  van  der.     Portraits  of  Man  and 

730  /  Wife.     These  portraits  have  breadth  and  simplicity 

of  composition  and  colour,  and  are  done  in  a  broad 
if  rather  smooth  method  of  handling.  The  satin 
of  the  coat  and  dress  is  a  little  too  pretty.  It  is 
the  work  of  a  man  practically  unknown  in  art 
history.  His  other  pictures  are  probably  serving 
time  in  gallery  catalogues  as  Terborchs  and  Metsus. 

572-  1  Molenaer,  Jan  Miense.  The  Five  Senses.  Five 
576  J  panels  of  rather  ordinary  quality  in  colour,  by 
the  painter  who  married  Judith  Leyster  (see  No. 
564).  Both  man  and  wife  were  probably  pupils  of 
Frans  Hals,  whose  style  they  followed,  the  wife 
being  a  close  imitator  at  one  time  and  doing  some 
pictures  still  attributed  to  Hals  himself.  See  the 
note  on  Hals,  No.  1093,  at  Amsterdam. 
655.  Moreelse,  Paulus.  Portrait  of  a  Lady.  With 
the  brilliant  colouring  of  Mierevelt  and  a  little 
broader  handling.  There  is  some  excellent  draw- 
ing in  the  eyes  and  brows.  Decidedly  a  dashing 
affair  in  costume  and  colour.  Van  Dyck  may 
have  thought  the  style  of  it  sufficiently  distin- 
guished for  him  to  appropriate  certain  of  its  effects, 
such  as  that  of  the  left  hand,  or  the  fan,  or  the  turn 


80  THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

of  the  eyes.  It  is  generally  supposed  that  Moreelse 
painted  not  a  few  of  the  so-called  early  Van  Dyeks 
that  are  in  various  galleries  at  the  present  time. 

705.    Laughing  Man  with  Globe.     The  attribution 

is  doubted,  and  the  catalogue  suggests  Paulus  Bor 
(the  painter  who  did  the  very  good  Finding  of 
Moses,  No.  567,  in  the  Amsterdam  Museum)  as 
its  possible  author,  on  the  strength  of  the  face  and 
arm,  perhaps.  The  hat  and  its  gold  band  suggest 
a  follower  of  Rembrandt.  Neither  Bor  nor  More- 
else  was  influenced  by  Rembrandt.  A  good  piece 
of  work. 

117.  Moro,  Antonio.  Portrait  of  a  Goldsmith.  A 
*  strong,  positive  portrait.  There  is  a  large  drawing 
of  the  hands,  beard,  hair,  and  jewels  that  speaks 
for  strength,  though  the  surface — the  dress  particu- 
larly— is  perhaps  over-smooth.  It  is  probably  by 
Moro  in  an  unusual  mood.  He  is  not  often  so 
large  nor  so  convincing  as  here. 

559.    Portrait  of  a  Gentleman.     A  sad-faced  man  in 

rich  costume,  with  both  head  and  costume  a  little 
flattened  against  the  background.  The  sitter  is 
supposed  to  have  been  William  of  Orange,  and  the 
picture  is  placed  next  to  No.  225  for  identification. 
Moro  is  thought  to  have  painted  William  of  Orange 
twice.  There  is  another  portrait  of  him  assigned 
to  Moro  at  Cassel  (No.  37). 

296.  Murillo,  Bartolome  Esteban.  Virgin  and  Child. 
The  picture  is  decently  drawn,  freely  handled,  and 
with  tolerably  good  colour.  It  is  less  saccharine 
than  most  of  the  Murillo  Madonnas,  though  it  has 
a  tendency  to  prettiness. 

682.  Neer,  Aart  van  der.  Dutch  Landscape  with 
Moonlight.    An   interesting   study   of  moonlight 


POTTER,   PAULUS  81 

which  some  of  our  moderns  could  give  more  scien- 
tifically but  perhaps  not  more  picturesquely.  The 
sky  and  the  clouds  are  the  best  part  of  it,  though 
the  foreground  is  very  good. 

Netherland  School.  Solomon  and  the  Queen  of 
Sheba,  A  triptych  somewhat  in  the  manner  of 
Herri  met  de  Bles.  The  central  panel  shows  a 
lofty  figure  of  the  queen  in  white,  with  blue 
shadows  on  the  white.  There  are  also  blue  shadows 
on  her  red  scarf.  What  splendid  robes !  And  what 
ornate  architecture!  The  side  panels  are  in  the 
same  vein  with  much  colour.  This  is  probably  by 
the  painter  of  No.  146  in  the  Munich  Gallery — 
that  is,  the  pseudo-Bles.  The  coarse  drawing  of 
the  feet  and  hands  seems  to  indicate  this  in  a  gen- 
eral way.     See  the  note  on  the  Munich  picture. 

^  Piero  di  Cosimo.  Two  Portraits,  Described  by 
Vasari  in  his  life  of  Piero  as  portraits  of  Giuliano 
da  San  Gallo  and  Francesco  Giamberti.  They 
have  a  German  look  about  them,  as  though  some 
German  in  Italy  had  made  copies  of  Piero. 

Potter,  Paulus.  The  Young  Bull.  This  is  the 
court  of  last  resort  as  regards  Potter  as  a  painter, 
for  this  is  his  masterpiece  and  a  world-famous  pic- 
ture— famous  far  beyond  its  deserts.  It  does  not 
justify  the  high  praises  given  it.  Certainly  the 
bull  is  a  good  piece  of  anatomical  drawing,  except 
for  some  queer  foreshortening.  And  the  bull's 
hide  is  not  badly  painted — ^hair,  flies,  and  all. 
Also  the  distant  landscape  is  excellent,  but  it  is  so 
far  removed  from  the  foreground  that  it  belongs 
to  another  world.  The  connection  between  fore- 
ground and  background  is  lost.  These  are  about 
the  only  virtues  the  picture  possesses.     If  we  wish 


82  THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

to  know  its  shortcomings  we  may  inquire:  Is  the 
bull  alive,  and  is  this  a  representation  of  bull  life, 
or  is  the  bull  a  museum  specimen,  dead  and  stuffed, 
with  glass  eyes,  and  varnish  on  his  nose?  Is  this 
the  painting  of  a  bull  or  a  bull-hide?  Has  the  cow 
lying  down  in  front  of  the  bull  the  body  of  a  cow, 
or  is  it  some  kind  of  hard  limestone?  Do  the 
whitewashed  sheep  belong  in  this  landscape  or 
on  a  tombstone?  The  tree  and  the  impossible 
man,  are  they  not  also  dead?  Does  not  the  whole 
group  belong  in  a  waxworks  museum?  Perhaps  it 
is  not  right  to  speak  jestingly  of  so  serious  a  work 
of  so  serious  a  painter,  but  neither  is  it  right  to 
proclaim  by  bell  and  book  the  great  art  of  this 
picture,  and  thus  give  people  by  the  thousands 
an  erroneous  idea  of  what  constitutes  painting. 
Call  it  a  good  piece  of  hard  drawing  and  dismiss 
it  with  that.  It  is  far  from  complete  art — in  fact, 
it  is  only  an  elementary  recitation  by  a  young  man 
who  might  have  done  better  things  had  he  not 
died  before  he  was  thirty.  Fine  art  must  mean, 
primarily,  fine  thinking  and  feeling  in  form  or 
colour.  Which  one  does  this  picture  possess? 
Is  it  fine  in  line,  colour,  light,  surface,  handling? 
But  the  bull  stands  out!  Yes,  that  is  his  worst 
feature.  Nothing  stands  in  or  has  air  or  envelope. 
The  whole  picture  has  an  exaggerated  name. 
There  is  not  a  single  great  thing  about  it.  See 
Potter's  portrait  by  Van  der  Heist  on  the  wall  at 
the  right. 

137.    The  Cow  in  the  Water.     This  picture  is  not 

much  noticed  because  of  the  presence  of  the  Young 
Bull  picture  in  another  room;  but  it  is  not  a  bad 
Potter — that  is,  not  much  worse  than  usual.  The 
trees  are  niggled,  the  cattle  hard,  the  light  impos- 


REMBRANDT  83 

sible.  But  so  long  as  that  cow's  reflection  appears 
in  the  water  people  will  regard  the  picture  as 
wonderful. 

658.    Ouast,    Pieter    Jansz.     The    Card  Players.     In 

the  style  of  Brouwer  and  with  fair  results  as  re- 
gards types  and  colour,  though  it  lacks  everywhere 
in  drawing.  As  a  Brouwer  type,  the  burly  ruffian 
in  the  centre  is  very  good. 

119.  Ravesteyn,  Jan  Anthonisz.  Portrait  of  Amalia 
Elizabeth.  With  much  flare  of  ruff  and  costume 
and  a  prettified  face  and  hair,  but  perhaps  not  so 
good  as  the  men's  portraits  in  the  next  room  by 
the  same  hand.  It  is  attractive  in  colour.  For- 
merly attributed  to  Paulus  Moreelse.  See  also  No. 
120. 

707.  Rembrandt  van  Ryn.  Andromeda.  An  over- 
cleaned  little  panel  showing  a  well-modelled  figure 
as  regards  weight  and  bulk,  but  heavy  in  the  hand 
and  protruding  in  the  head.  It  might  have  been 
done  by  Rembrandt,  but  there  is  no  positive  indi- 
cation of  his  brush.  At  Berlin  similar  work  is  put 
down  to  Flinck  (No.  813b). 

556  1  Study  Heads.     The  question  of  whether  these 

598  J  little  heads  were  actually  done  by  Rembrandt  will 
probably  remain  unanswered.  It  is  of  small  matter, 
for  they  do  not  help  or  improve  our  conception  of 
Rembrandt  in  any  way.  No.  556  is  a  vigorous 
sketch,  but  quite  apart  from  the  bulk  of  the 
master's  work.  No.  598  has  every  indication  of 
being  a  modern  picture,  done  in  imitation  of  Rem- 
brandt. 

145.    Simeon  in  the  Temple.     With  the  Lesson  in 

Anatomy   hanging   near   it,  done   in  1632,  when 


84  THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

Rembrandt  was  twenty-six,  how  is  it  possible  to 
think  he  did  this  small,  spotty,  and  pretty  Simeon 
in  the  Temple  at  any  earlier  date  or  at  any  time 
whatever?  In  the  Lesson  in  Anatomy,  examine 
the  breadth  of  the  masses,  the  largeness  of  the  light 
concentrations,  the  bulk  of  the  colour,  the  absence 
of  any  small  glitters  or  spots  of  light,  the  flatness 
of  the  brush  stroke,  and  then  look  at  this  pettily 
conceived,  dotted-and-dabbed  picture  of  Simeon, 
with  its  smooth  textures,  rather  sweet  colour,  and  its 
shoe-button  high  lights !  Could  the  same  man  have 
done  the  two  pictures?  It  is  not  admissible  to 
argue  that  this  Simeon  picture  is  an  earlier  Rem- 
brandt, because,  if  the  signature  is  genuine,  it  is 
only  one  year  earlier,  and  besides  the  style  of  it 
is  not  early  or  immature.  It  is  the  finished  mature 
style  of  a  man  who  has  perfected  a  small  method. 
It  is  by  some  painter  standing  close  to,  say,  Willem 
de  Poorter  or  Koninck.  Look  at  the  same  char- 
acter and  quality  of  work  in  the  Koninck  here  (No. 
36),  or  in  the  Amsterdam  Gallery  (No.  1375). 
The  painter  of  the  Simeon  possibly  painted  the 
Europa  or  the  Proserpina  in  the  Berlin  Gallery, 
put  down  there  as  early  Rembrandts.  The  differ- 
ence in  mental  calibre  and  point  of  view  between 
this  small  painter  and  Rembrandt  should  alone 
be  sufficient  to  decide  the  question,  aside  from 
technique.  The  Simeon  picture  is  not  great  art, 
though  it  is  effective  in  the  grouping  and  placing 
of  the  figures  in  the  light,  air,  and  space  of  the 
vast  temple.  A  so-called  copy  by  Poorter  is  in 
the  Dresden  Gallery;  but  perhaps  both  pictures 
are  originals  by  Poorter  or  Koninck. 

579.    Travellers    Resting.     A  sketch,   very  true  in 

its  handling  of  light  and  striking  in  its  composi- 


REMBRANDT  85 

tion  by  masses  of  light  and  shade.  Rembrandt 
might  have  done  it,  but  it  is  not  such  a  work  of 
genius  that  any  one  of  several  pupils  could  not 
have  painted  it. 

149.    Portrait   of   the    Painter.     Not   too   carefully 

*  done  in  the  drawing  of  the  face,  but  given  with  a 
good  deal  of  spirit  and  life.  It  has  a  grey  tone, 
good  shadows,  and  considerable  relief.  The  han- 
dling of  it  is  free  and  effective.  Thought  to  be  a 
later  likeness  of  the  same  model  as  No.  148,  but 
apparently  neither  the  model  nor  the  painter  is 
the  same  in  the  two  pictures.  This  No.  149  is  ap- 
parently in  the  Rembrandt  vein,  whereas  No.  148 
is  probably  nearer  to  Lievens. 

560.    Study  of  an  Old  Man's  Head.     Referred  to 

*  Rembrandt's  late  manner,  about  1650.  It  is  foxy 
in  colour,  very  much  loaded,  dragged,  thumbed, 
and  kneaded  in  the  pigments,  especially  about  the 
head  and  face — the  whole  being  now  rather  messy 
and  dirty.  There  is  a  strong  grip  on  the  mass  of 
the  head,  neck,  and  shoulders,  and  as  a  study  in 
anatomy  it  is  more  impressive  than  as  a  study  in 
psychology.  The  colour  is  hot  and  the  surface 
rather  disagreeable.  It  belongs  in  the  class  with 
the  Man  in  the  Golden  Helmet  at  Berlin  (No.  811a). 
The  subject  is  said  to  be  Rembrandt's  brother,  but 
the  same  person  figures  as  a  model  in  pictures  by 
Bol,  at  Brussels  (No.  48),  and  in  the  Louvre  (No. 
2328),  also  in  pictures  by  Fabritius,  Darmstadt 
Gallery  (No.  349),  and  elsewhere.  Did  Rem- 
brandt's relatives  obligingly  lend  themselves  to 
the  pupils  of  the  school,  or  were  they  no  relatives 
at  all,  but  merely  studio  models  used  by  master 
and  pupils  alike? 


86  THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

621.   Saul  and  David.     This  rather  striking  picture 

*  is  said  to  have  been  painted  in  1658,  eight  years 
later  than  the  foxy  Old  Man's  Head  (No.  560); 
yet  its  surface  is  much  less  worked  over,  much 
smoother.  Not  but  what  it,  too,  is  thumbed  and 
dragged  in  its  pigments,  but  in  degree  the  thumb- 
ing is  much  slighter.  And  besides,  the  manner  of 
its  mannerisms  is  not  Rembrandt's.  That  gor- 
geous turban  is  too  prettily  done  and  too  clear  in  its 
tones  of  colour  for  Rembrandt  in  1658.  Not  alone 
the  colours,  but  the  eye,  ear,  face,  beard  are 
much  too  clear,  clean,  and  shadowless  for  the 
great  master  at  that  time.  Again,  the  curtain  is 
rather  soft  and  pretty,  the  cloak,  even  beneath  its 
slashings  of  paint  (which  are  ineffective  in  the  high 
lights)  is  lacking  in  drawing,  the  bulk  of  the  body 
under  the  cloak  is  not  felt,  and  the  hand  is  too 
long  in  the  fingers  for  Rembrandt.  And  what 
about  the  rather  pretty  David  at  the  right,  with 
the  badly  drawn  hands?  Did  Rembrandt  do  that, 
too?  The  picture  has  not  Rembrandt's  handling, 
drawing,  light,  shade,  colour,  or  general  quality. 
The  work  might  better  be  called  a  Flinck.  That, 
at  any  rate,  would  be  nearer  than  Rembrandt. 
Compare  it  with  No.  368,  in  the  Budapest  Gallery. 
The  same  hand  probably  did  both  pictures,  but 
it  was  not  Rembrandt's  hand.  The  three  pictures 
placed  here  together  on  one  wall  (Nos.  621,  685, 
584)  are  contradictory  of  one  another  in  their  sur- 
faces, though  according  to  their  dates  done  at 
about  the  same  time.  The  Negroes  is  smooth, 
the  Homer  is  tortured,  the  Saul  and  David  is 
slashed  and  swiped.  This  is  only  one  of  many 
differences,  and  yet  it  is  sufficient  to  point  out  that 
the  pictures  were  done  by  three  different  men. 


REMBRANDT  87 

And  they  are  all  of  them  good  pictures — pictures 
not  to  be  passed  by  lightly  because  connoisseur- 
ship  has  their  painters  confused. 

685.    The  Two  Negroes.     How  does  it  happen  that 

a  Rembrandt  picture  signed  and  dated  1661  is  so 
flat  in  the  handling  and  smooth  in  the  surfaces, 
with  no  kneading  or  thumbing,  when  near  it  is  the 
tortured  Homer  (No.  584),  done  two  years  later, 
and  in  the  next  room  the  dragged  and  thumbed 
Study  of  an  Old  Man's  Head  (No.  560),  done  eleven 
years  earlier?  Did  Rembrandt  "throw  back'*  to 
an  earlier  manner  between  times,  or  did  some  other 
artist  paint  this  negro  picture  for  him?  Inconsis- 
tency is  supposed  to  be  an  artistic  virtue,  but  it 
should  be  susceptible  of  explanation,  just  the  same. 
The  explanation  here  of  a  cleaned  or  repainted 
surface  will  not  answer,  for  there  is  no  marked  in- 
dication of  it.  The  picture  is  flat,  lacks  depth  and 
air,  and  is  not  well  modelled  or  drawn.  It  is  prob- 
ably not  by  the  painter  of  the  Negro  Head  in  the 
Berlin  Gallery  (No.  825) — Hendrick  Herrschop.  It 
is  somewhat  different  from  the  Berlin  picture.  It 
is  certainly  not  by  Rembrandt. 

584.   Homer.     This    picture    was    done,    possibly 

*  about  1663,  with  a  fumbling,  heavy  touch,  but  with 
certainty  as  regards  bulk  and  body,  and  a  preser- 
vation of  the  atmospheric  setting — qualities  which 
are  lacking  in  the  Saul  and  David  (No.  621).  No- 
tice also  here  the  high  light  massed  on  the  shoulder, 
while  in  No.  621  the  lights  are  small,  scattered,  and 
ineffective.  Notice  still  further  the  difference  in 
the  colour  and  in  the  shadows  under  the  arms. 
The  Homer  is  Rembrandt  nearly  at  the  end  of  his 
career,  but  still  powerful,  massive,  grand  in  en- 


88  THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

semble.  Look  at  it  from  across  the  room.  It  is 
somewhat  in  the  style  of  the  Jewish  Bride,  at  Am- 
sterdam, and  perhaps  was  never  finished — to  the 
painter's  satisfaction  at  least.  It  has  the  look  of 
something  started,  put  aside  for  some  reason,  and 
found  among  the  painter's  sketches  after  his  death. 

577.    Portrait  of  a  Young  Girl.     It  may  be  passed 

without  comment,  no  matter  who  painted  it  or 
signed  it.  At  one  time  it  was  laid  to  Cuyp's  ac- 
count, as  now  to  Rembrandt's.  Neither  painter  had 
anything  to  do  with  it. 

147.    Susanna  Bathing,     This  picture  was  possibly 

done  by  the  painter  of  the  same  subject  in  the 
Berhn  Gallery  (No.  828e).  See  the  note  upon  that 
picture.  It  is  a  coarse-grained  work,  with  poor 
enough  painting  in  the  robes,  the  foliage,  the  hair, 
the  figure  to  have  been  done  by  some  such  follower 
as  Eeckhout.     The  colour  has  no  quality  to  it. 

565.    Rembrandt's  Father,     It  is  not  unlike  other 

portraits,  less  than  life-size,  attributed  to  Rem- 
brandt's early  period,  say  1630.  The  modelling  is 
not  too  strong  and  the  light-and-shade  is  pallid. 
The  handling  in  the  fur  is  ineffective  and  the  bulk 
of  the  figure  is  not  given.  It  has  the  look  of  a 
school  piece,  and  may  possibly  be  of  Lievens  ori- 
gin, though  there  is  no  certainty  about  this. 

626.    Minerva.     A   picture   of   some   slight   colour 

charm,  but  as  far  removed  from  Rembrandt  as  the 
Simeon  in  the  Temple  (No.  145).  Said  to  have 
been  done  about  1630,  two  years  before  the  Lesson 
in  Anatomy,  with  which  it  should  be  compared  for 
light,  shade,  composition,  hands.  Think  of  Rem- 
brandt doing  all  this  agglomerated  junk  on  the 


REMBRANDT  89 

wall,  chair,  and  floor,  like  a  Netscher  or  a  Dou! 
The  picture  is  of  modern  origin  and  is  a  modern 
imitation  of  Rembrandt. 

146.    Anatomical  Lecture   of  Professor   Tulp.     We 

***  here  have  Rembrandt  in  his  early  manner,  in  a 
picture  about  which  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  doubt. 
It  was  done  by  his  own  hand  and  should  be  accepted 
as  a  standard  by  which  his  early  work  should  be 
judged.  Notice,  at  the  start,  that  while  each  head 
has  an  illumination  of  its  own,  there  are  no  small 
spots  and  flickers  anywhere.  The  high  lights,  as 
also  the  shadows,  are  all  large  in  area.  Notice 
the  flatness  of  the  handling,  the  absence  of  lumpi- 
ness  or  modelled  spots,  the  breadth  of  the  colouring, 
the  absolute  truth  and  simplicity  of  the  drawing. 
For  comparison  elsewhere,  mark  the  manner  in 
which  the  hair,  beards,  ruffs,  and  black  dresses  are 
painted.  And,  again,  the  drawing  of  the  eyes,  ears, 
mouths,  and  especially  the  size  and  kind  of  hand 
Rembrandt  painted — the  hands  of  Dr.  Tulp  as  well 
as  those  of  the  corpse.  What  wonderful  flesh  paint- 
ing and  shadows  in  the  Dr.  Tulp.  Notice  his  head 
and  the  shadows  under  the  hat.  Notice  also  the 
shadows  on  the  white  ruffs,  and  the  drawing  of  the 
somewhat  bloated  figure  on  the  table !  At  the  back 
there  is  a  feeling  of  space,  of  air,  of  architec- 
tural columns  and  arches  dimly  seen.  How  very 
different  it  all  is  from  the  Simeon  in  the  Temple 
(No.  145)!  It  is  so  much  larger  in  spirit,  vision, 
feeling.  Read  Fromentin  (Old  Masters  of  Belgium 
and  Holland)  on  this  picture.  It  is  an  early  mas- 
terpiece and  a  famous  picture.  Somewhat  cleaned 
and  hurt  by  retouching  and  relining,  but  still  a 
wonderful  picture. 
For  the  purpose  of  getting  a  general  idea  of  Rem- 


90  THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

brandt  and  his  art,  the  various  pictures  attributed 
to  him  should  be  assigned  tentatively  as  follows: 

1.  The  pictures  which  are  certainly  by  his  hand, 
about  which  there  is  no  question,  and  which,  from 
their  quality,  proclaim  themselves  surely  his  work. 
The  Early  Period.  The  Lesson  in  Anatomy,  The 
Hague,  1632;  Saskia,  Cassel,  1633;  Portrait  of 
Burggraef,  Dresden,  1633;  Portrait  of  Old  Lady 
(No.  775),  National  Gallery,  London,  1634;  Por- 
trait of  Man  (No.  850),  National  Gallery,  London, 
1635;  the  Coppenol  Portrait,  Cassel,  1632;  the  so- 
called  Sobieski,  Hermitage,  St.  Petersburg,  1637. 
The  Middle  Period,  Saskia  with  the  Red  Flower, 
Dresden,  1641;  Manoah's  Prayer,  Dresden,  1641; 
The  Night  Watch,  Amsterdam,  1642.  The  Late 
Period.  The  Flayed  Ox,  Louvre,  1655;  Jewish 
Bride,  Amsterdam,  1662;  Five  Syndics,  Amster- 
dam, 1661;  Homer,  The  Hague,  1663.  These  are 
but  a  few  examples  from  many,  but  they  will  sug- 
gest the  kind  of  work  that  can  be  attributed  to 
Rembrandt  with  assurance  and  reasonable  cer- 
tainty. 

2.  In  a  second  class  may  be  grouped  a  series  of 
portraits  assigned  to  Rembrandt  but  not  by  him. 
They  are  marked  by  a  tight  or  pinched  look,  ex- 
aggerated bone  drawing  in  the  face  and  hands, 
blackish  shadows  with  reddish  flesh.  Such  por- 
traits as  these  are  the  women  portraits  at  Brussels 
(No.  368)  and  the  National  Gallery,  London  (No. ' 
675).  They  are  certainly  by  Nicolas  Maes.  Later 
on  Maes  changed  his  style  to  a  softer  handling  and 
drawing,  possibly  doing  then  the  Architect,  at 
Cassel  (No.  246).  The  same  kind  of  work,  but 
weaker,  appears  in  the  Maes  portrait  at  The  Hague 
(No.  90). 


REMBRANDT  91 

3.  A  third  class  of  portraits  and  pictures  assigned 
to  Rembrandt  is  marked  by  a  soft  yellow  flesh,  loose 
drawing,  rather  facile,  but  somewhat  ineffectual 
handling.  They  are  such  pictures  as  the  Rem- 
brandt and  Saskia,  at  Dresden  (No.  1559),  the 
Holy  Family,  at  Munich  (No.  324),  the  Artemisa 
at  Madrid  (No.  2132).  They  come  nearer  to  the 
work  of  Bol  than  any  one  else,  and  may  be  put 
there  tentatively  and  for  the  present  only. 

4.  A  fourth  class  of  so-called  Rembrandts  shows 
tall  figures,  bright  colours,  dark,  blackish  shadows, 
pretentious  subjects,  not  always  good  drawing, 
and  often  broad  but  ineffective  handling.  To  this 
class  belong  the  Saul  before  David,  at  The  Hague; 
the  Christ  before  Pilate,  at  Budapest  (No.  368) ;  the 
Parable,  at  Frankfort  (No.  181);  the  half-length, 
at  Munich  (No.  345).  The  man,  who  seems  the 
most  probable  painter  of  these  pictures  is  Flinck, 
to  whom  they  may  be  tentatively  assigned. 

5.  A  fifth  class  of  so-called  Rembrandts  is  made 
up  of  dark-shadowed  pictures,  with  dark,  deep 
colours,  long  fingers  and  hands,  roundish  faces. 
This  kind  of  picture  is  seen  in  the  alleged  Hen- 
drickje  Stoffels,  at  Berlin  (No.  828b),  and  at  the 
Louvre  (No.  2543) ;  in  the  Man  with  the  Staff,  at 
Cassel  (No.  245);  the  Man's  Portrait,  at  Dresden 
(No.  1568) ;  the  Woman's  Portrait,  National  Gal- 
lery, London  (No.  237),  and  the  Centurion  Cor- 
nelius, in  the  Wallace  Collection  (No.  86).  They 
should  be  assigned  tentatively  and  not  at  all  cer- 
tainly to  Bernaert  Fabritius. 

6.  A  sixth  class  of  so-called  Rembrandts  should 
be  assigned  to  Eeckhout.  The  small  figure  of  the 
Man  with  a  Red  Cap,  at  Berlin  (No.  828j);  the 
Woman  Bathing,  London  (No.  54),  will  point  out 


92  THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

the  general  style  of  the  picture.  It  is  marked  by 
crude  whites  in  rather  sharp  contrast  with  blackish 
shadows,  and  by  a  broad,  downward  stroke  of  the 
loaded  brush  in  the  draperies. 

7.  A  seventh  class  of  so-called  Rembrandts  is 
formed  of  small,  sketchy  heads,  or  sketchy  nude 
figures,  generally  done  with  some  verve,  although 
loosely  drawn  and  painted.  They  are  school  studies 
by  Flinck,  Maes,  and  others.  The  Hague  has  both 
kinds  of  these  pictures  in  Nos.  556  and  707. 

8.  Still  another  group  of  supposed  Rembrandts 
consists  of  hermit  heads,  showing  the  cranium,  and 
also  philosophers  seated  in  dimly  lighted  rooms. 
These  are  small  pictures  and  are  seen  chiefly  in 
the  Louvre  (Nos.  2540,  2541,  2541a),  and  were 
possibly  painted  by  Dou  and  Koninck. 

9.  Frequently  in  the  European  galleries  one 
meets  with  Rembrandtesque  study  heads  and  por- 
traits that  are  soft  in  modelling  with  vague  out- 
lines and  soft  shadows.  The  flesh  is  greyish  and 
the  general  tone  grey.  They  are  usually  marked 
by  the  mannerism  of  the  hair  or  beard,  being 
ploughed  or  scratched  with  the  wooden  end  of  the 
brush.  Rembrandt  did  not  do  this  except  in  one 
instance,  and  then  it  seems  more  accidental  or  im- 
petuous than  designed.  The  man  who  scratched 
and  ploughed  for  effects  of  light-and-shade  in  the 
hair  was  Jan  Lievens,  and  he  was  the  painter  who 
painted  these  softly  modelled  heads.  His  signed 
pictures  at  the  Hermitage  and  in  the  Czernin  Col- 
lection, Vienna,  indicate  as  much.  The  Rem- 
brandt's Sister,  at  the  Brera,  Milan,  and  the  por- 
traits Nos.  229,  230,  231,  233  at  Cassel  with  a 
number  of  others  in  German  galleries  are  probably 
by  him. 


REMBRANDT  93 

10.  The  largest  class  of  supposed  Rembrandts  is 
made  up  of  small,  minutely  done,  Simeon-in-the- 
Temple  pictures.  The  Simeon  picture  at  The 
Hague  (No.  145);  The  Woman  Taken  in  Adultery, 
at  London  (No.  45);  the  Proserpine,  Europa,  and 
Minerva,  at  Berlin;  and  many  other  little  pictures, 
much  laboured  and  worked  over,  belong  in  this  class. 
Several  men  might  have  done  them,  and  probably 
did  do  them — such  men  as  Vliet,  Poorter,  Koninck. 

11.  The  negro  heads  assigned  to  Rembrandt  (in 
the  Wallace  Collection,  for  example)  were  probably 
done  by  Hendrick  Herrschop. 

12.  Many  of  the  landscapes  given  to  Rembrandt 
were  done  by  Hercules  Seghers,  or  Molyn,  or  pupils 
of  the  master. 

The  student  should  try  to  keep  these  classes  in 
mind  as  classes  without  pinning  too  much  faith 
to  the  individual  illustrations  offered.  As  stated 
above,  the  assignments  are  only  tentative.  Rem- 
brandt and  his  school  will  slowly  have  to  be  dug 
out  of  all  the  mass  of  misapprehension  that  now 
buries  them.  The  pupils  are  as  badly  confused  as 
the  master. 

It  may  be  added  that  the  Rembrandt  etch- 
ings are  as  contradictory  as  the  pictures,  with 
even  less  certainty  about  them.  Anything  that 
looks  at  all  Rembrandtesque  is  put  down  posi- 
tively as  by  Rembrandt.  Then  follows  the  inter- 
esting confirmation  of  the  picture  by  the  etching 
and  the  etching  by  the  picture.  If  you  believe 
the  one  you  must  believe  the  other,  on  the  prin- 
ciple that  two  wrongs  always  make  a  right.  The 
Rembrandt  tangle,  thanks  to  the  countless  twists 
and  turns  of  dealers  and  collectors,  has  become  a 
Gordian  knot. 


94  THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

250.  Rubens,  Peter  Paul.  Isabella  Brandt,  With  a 
rich  background  against  which  the  hair  is  placed 
in  beautiful  relief.  The  drawing  of  the  head  is 
excellent,  and  the  dress  is  freely  handled.  For  the 
rest  of  the  picture,  it  is  over-cleaned  in  the  throat, 
the  breast,  the  hands,  and  has  some  repainting 
about  it.  It  may  be  school  work.  Another  ver- 
sion in  the  Wallace  Collection. 

251.    Helens  Fourment.     A  half-length,   somewhat 

like  the  one  at  Munich,  and  much  cleaned  in  the 
hair,  face,  neck,  hands — so  much  so  that  the  model- 
ling suffers  and  the  figure  and  face  are  flattened. 
It  is  hastily  done  and  more  than  likely  it  was  orig- 
inally done  by  a  pupil.  The  pupils  in  the  early 
days  learned  their  craft,  in  measure,  by  copying 
their  master's  works.  Notice  the  clumsy  left  hand 
and  the  ineffectively  painted  ruffs  at  the  wrist,  the 
heavy  black  coat,  the  fur,  the  hair,  the  curtain. 

252.    Portrait  of  Michiel  Ophovius.     There  is  now 

small  indication  of  Rubens  in  the  uncertain  hair 
and  beard,  in  the  red  shadow  back  of  the  ear,  in 
the  misfit  eyes,  in  the  black  robe  or  the  dark  shadow 
of  it  cast  upon  the  white  undergarment.  Nor  will 
the  right  hand  pass  muster  for  Rubens's  drawing. 
It  is  an  indifferent  portrait  for  which  some  pupil 
was  largely  responsible. 

234.    Naiades    Filling    the    Horn    of   Plenty.     This 

panel  should  be  closely  compared  with  the  one 
hanging  opposite  (No.  253),  put  down  to  the  same 
painters — Rubens  and  Brueghel.  A  comparison 
of  the  trees  in  the  background  of  each,  the  tree 
trunks  and  leaves  in  the  foreground  of  each,  the 
fruit  at  the  bottom  of  each  will  show  that  the  same 
fruit  and  landscape  painter  did  both  panels,  so  far 


RUISDAEL  95 

as  the  fruit  and  the  landscape  go.  That  painter 
was  probably  Brueghel,  as  the  catalogue  states. 
On  the  contrary,  a  comparison  of  the  figures  in 
each  picture — hands  with  hands,  feet  with  feet, 
eyes  with  eyes,  hair  with  hair,  flesh  with  flesh  will 
show  decided  differences.  The  Adam  and  Eve 
(No.  253)  is  now  a  much  subtler  work  in  both  draw- 
ing and  handling.  The  figures  of  Adam  and  Eve 
appear  at  present  vastly  superior  to  any  in  No.  234. 
The  comparison  brings  one  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  figures  in  No.  253  were  probably  done  by 
Rubens,  but  are  now  much  cleaned,  so  that  some 
modelling  is  lost,  say  in  the  face  of  Eve,  which  is  a 
little  vague,  and  in  her  hair  and  back,  which  now 
show  their  underpainting.  This  is  equally  true  of 
the  Adam.  But  the  figures  are  still  fine  figures,  if 
small  and  minutely  done.  No.  234  is  by  no  means 
of  the  same  value.  The  figures  may  have  been 
done  by  another  hand  than  that  of  Rubens — the 
hand  of  a  pupil  or  follower — but  it  is  also  possible 
they  are  Rubenses  that  have  been  restored  and  re- 
painted, and  their  modelling  and  surface  thus  de- 
stroyed. The  picture  was  formerly  ascribed  to  Van 
Balen. 

253.    Adam  and  Eve.     See  the  note  on  No.  234  for 

a  comparison  of  the  two  pictures. 

534.  Ruisdael,  Jacob  van.  The  Vijverberg  at  The 
Hague,  Unusual  in  subject  for  Ruisdael  and  some- 
what dark  in  the  lighting.  The  interesting  small 
figures  are  supposed  to  be  by  Wouwerman.  They 
are  better  than  the  landscape,  but  neither  of  them 
is  in  any  way  remarkable. 

728.    Evening — Twilight.     It  is   somewhat  worried 

in  the  foliage  and  thereby  suggests  that  it  is,  per- 


96  THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

haps,  an  early  example  of  Ruisdael.  The  sky  is 
rather  good  in  its  high  key  of  light,  but  in  lumi- 
nosity all  these  Dutch  landscapists  must  give  way 
before  Vermeer  of  Delft.  See  his  No.  92  in  this 
gallery. 

154.   Shore  Piece,     Better  in  the  beach  and  shore 

and  in  the  sky  than  is  usual  with  Ruisdael.  The 
sea,  too,  is  effectively  drawn,  though  unusually 
dry  in  handling.  With  small  figures  that  hold 
their  places  well.  The  catalogue  calls  the  picture 
an  old  copy. 

566.  Ruysdael,  Salomon  van.  Landscape.  An  ex- 
ceptional Ruysdael,  with  an  attractive  sky  and 
some  excellent  painting  of  trees,  bridge,  and  water. 
The  light  is  dull  in  the  foreground,  after  the  manner 
of  this  painter.  Not  unlike  the  Decker  landscape 
at  Brussels  (No.  146).     See  also  No.  699. 

269- 1  Seisenegger,  Jacob.     Portraits  of  Children  of 

271  J  the  House  of  Austria.  These  three  panels  are 
*  fine  in  colour  and  even  finer  as  child  portraiture. 
They  have  much  character  and  not  a  little  excel- 
lence in  hard  drawing.  The  faces  are  particularly 
well  done,  and  the  stiff  brocades  of  the  costumes 
and  their  odd  caps  are  interesting.  The  gold 
lettering  rather  helps  out  the  decorative  effect. 
Other  versions  at  Brussels  (Nos.  27,  28). 

297.  Spanish  School.  Head  of  a  Boy.  A  rather  good 
head,  though  loosely  drawn  and  freely,  though  in- 
accurately, painted.  It  has  some  feeling  about  it. 
Formerly  attributed  to  Murillo.  It  might  have 
been  given  to  some  Antwerp  painter,  for  it  is  more 
Flemish  than  Spanish. 

167.  Steen,  Jan.  The  Sick  Girl.  A  so-so  Steen,  with 
the  central  figure  the  best  part  of  it.     The  colour 


TERBORCH,  GERARD  97 

is  not  remarkable  except  at  the  back  and  at  the 
left.  The  room  is  well  drawn,  as  are  also  the  figures. 
Steen  repeated  the  motive  several  times,  notably 
at  Amsterdam  (No.  2246). 

168.    The  Doctor's  Visit.     This  is  of  about  the  same 

quality  as  No.  167.  It  is  somewhat  too  elegant  in 
the  furnishings  to  show  the  painter's  best  work. 
The  colour  is  not  remarkable,  and  yet  is  agreeable. 
The  bed  at  the  back  and  the  chair  are  the  best  parts 
of  the  picture. 

169.   The  Painter's  Family.    Painters,  in  common 

with  more  mundane  folk,  sometimes  neglect  their 
families,  and  this  time  Steen  did  not  paint  his 
family  with  either  great  care  or  great  love.  It  is 
poor  work  for  so  good  a  craftsman  as  Steen.  The 
group  is  huddled,  the  pipes  make  stick-like  lines, 
the  light  is  dull,  the  colour  not  very  good. 

657.  SweertS,  Michiel.  Italian  Pastoral  Life.  With  a 
strong  figure  in  relief  against  the  central  light  and 
some  rather  broad  brush-work.  It  makes  a  spot 
of  light  on  the  wall  and  is  commanding  in  its 
breadth.  The  most  forceful  example  of  this  painter 
is  in  the  Munich  Gallery  (No.  390). 

176.  Terborch,  Gerard.  The  Despatch.  The  pic- 
ture has  a  background  that  lacks  in  definition  and 
a  foreground  of  questionable  drawing.  The  figure 
of  the  woman  on  the  floor  and  the  man  next  her 
are  fairly  well  posed,  but  they  are  not  well  drawn. 
Not  a  good  Terborch.  It  has  probably  been  in- 
jured in  the  background  by  cleaning  and  in  the 
figures  by  some  retouching — notably  in  the  hands. 

177.    Portrait    of    the    Painter.      It    was    possibly 

done  by  some  one  in  the  school — done  in  Terborch's 


98  THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

style,  but  with  less  taste  and  skill  than  he  possessed. 
The  figure  is  bulky  in  its  cloak,  the  left  leg  is  odd 
in  its  placing,  the  white  neck-piece  has  no  quality, 
the  hair  and  face  are  mediocre  in  painting,  and 
the  background  is  colourless. 

298.  Velasquez,  Diego  de  Silva  y.  Portrait  of  Don 
Baltasar  Carlos.  It  is  excellent  in  colour  and  in 
drawing.  The  curtain,  chair,  table,  armour,  boots, 
and  boy  are  all  well  done.  And  easily  done — well 
handled.  But  the  handling  is  not  that  of  Velas- 
quez. It  is  a  school  work  or  copy  by  some  pupil 
of  Velasquez.  Another  version  in  Buckingham 
Palace. 

471.  Velde  the  Younger,  Willem  van  de.  Surrender 
of  the  Royal  Prince.  It  has  considerable  spirit 
and  life  in  the  wind,  sails,  and  water  and  is  well 
held  together.  Not  a  bad  example  of  Willem  van 
de  Velde — in  fact,  one  of  his  best  works.  Another 
version  in  the  Amsterdam  Museum. 

611.    Verbeecq,  Pieter.      Two  Horsemen  Near  a  Brook. 

This  picture  is  interesting  largely  because  its 
painter  painted  pictures  attributed  to  Paul  Potter, 
notably  the  Old  Grey  Hunter  (No.  1009)  in  the 
National  Gallery,  London.  [Since  this  note  was 
written,  but  before  its  publication.  Dr.  Bredius  has 
arrived  at  a  similar  conclusion  regarding  the  Lon- 
don picture,  in  the  Burlington  Magazine  for  June, 
1913.] 

92.   Vermeer   (or  Van  der  Meet)   of  Delft,  Jan. 

***  View  of  Delft.  This  is  the  celebrated  Delft  land- 
scape by  Vermeer,  with  its  wonderful  sky  and  light, 
its  most  realistic  strip  of  water  so  well  studied  in  the 
reflections,  and  its  city  roofs  shown  in  light-and- 
shade  under  passing  clouds.  What  light,  floating 
clouds,  and  what  a  blue  sky  beyond  and  above! 


VERMEER  OF  DELFT  99 

The  sky  has  no  ghtter  or  sparkle  about  it  and  yet  is 
luminous  with  light.  Light  is  its  beginning  and  its 
ending.  The  impressionists  will  no  doubt  refer  to 
the  dotting  with  white  spots — the  so-called  earliest 
pointillisme — as  the  cause  for  the  light,  but  the  dot- 
ting and  spotting  appear  only  on  trees  and  boats 
and  walls,  where  it  has  little  or  no  effect.  It  was 
an  experiment  of  the  master's  which  he  by  no 
means  followed  in  all  his  pictures.  Besides,  it 
was  used  with  just  as  little  effect  by  Terborch, 
Poorter,  and  others.  The  colours  of  the  figures 
in  the  foreground,  and  the  blues  and  reds  of  the 
roofs  are  not  dotted,  but  painted  in  flat  patches. 
Relief,  distance,  and  air  are  obtained  by  the  aerial 
values  of  the  colours  as  detached  from  one  another. 
Linear  perspective  shows,  too,  in  the  recession  of 
the  church  steeple,  for  instance,  but  that  recession 
is  also  obtained  by  the  diminished  colour  of  the 
steeple  in  relation  to  the  foreground  roofs.  There 
thus  comes  in  a  feeling  of  air — a  sense  of  atmos- 
pheric envelope.  The  quite  perfect  understand- 
ing and  rendering  of  light,  air,  and  values,  produce 
what  must  be  considered  a  truly  wonderful  land- 
scape for  the  age  in  which  it  was  painted.  It  is 
sufficient  in  itself  to  make  the  reputation  of  The 
Hague  Gallery.  And  instead  of  justifying  poin- 
tillisme,  it  seems  to  demonstrate  that  light  may 
be  obtained  without  it.  Genius,  as  a  rule,  never 
worries  much  about  its  means  of  expression.  It 
is  the  little  men  who  are  always  exploiting  some 
new  method  or  medium,  not  the  Rubenses  or  the 
Titians.  Again,  what  light  and  colour!  What  lu- 
minosity! And  what  splendid  pictorial  truth!  It 
is  a  great  picture.  A  small  suggestion  of  it  is  in 
the  Six  Collection,  Amsterdam.     When  you  are  in 


* 


100  THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

The  Hague  Gallery,  notice  how  few  people  look  at 
this  Vermeer.  And  per  contra,  notice  the  crowd 
assembled  before  Potter's  Young  Bull.  Vermeer, 
the  greatest  of  all  the  Little  Dutchmen,  is  still  seek- 
ing an  audience. 

406.    Diana  and  Nymphs.     It  has  been  and  still 

is  a  picture  wonderful  in  its  colour  and  its  beauti- 
ful figures;  but,  alas!  it  has  been  badly  injured 
and  much  restored.  The  figures,  faces,  hands, 
feet  have  all  been  gone  over  to  their  injury.  How 
fine  the  landscape,  the  shadows  on  the  dresses,  the 
splendid  patches  of  colour  laid  one  upon  another 
still  appear!  The  Italian  Giorgione  did  things 
more  lyric,  more  idyllic,  but  never  things  more 
brilliant  or  more  colourful.  It  is  a  colour  harmony 
of  far  reach  and  depth.  One  cannot  quite  under- 
stand how  it  can  be  assigned  to  the  same  hand 
(and  done  at  the  same  time)  as  the  large  picture 
at  Dresden,  called  the  Proposal  (No.  1335).  Nor 
can  one  comprehend  its  being  done  by  the  painter 
of  the  Delft  Landscape  (No.  92).  Compare  the 
landscapes  in  the  matter  of  light  alone,  and  how 
different  they  are!  It  is  just  as  far  removed  from 
the  Girl's  Head  (No.  670).  The  colour,  the  light, 
the  drawing,  the  placing  of  the  colour  patches 
are  all  different.  Here  is  no  pointillisme,  no  dot- 
ting. And,  finally,  it  must  be  argued  that  this  is 
not  the  same  mind  at  work,  not  the  same  concep- 
tion of  form  in  space,  not  the  same  or  similar  types. 
This  is  not  Vermeer  at  all,  but  possibly  a  Dutch- 
man influenced  by  Italy.  Notice  the  Italian-look- 
ing trees  at  the  left.  The  picture  was  formerly 
attributed  to  Maes  and  then  to  Van  der  Meer 
of  Haarlem.  It  is  excellent,  whoever  its  painter. 
See  the  note  on  the  Vermeer,  No.  625. 


VERMEER  0F:x>EL5T';  :    ;  101 


670.    Head  of  a    Young   Girl,     What   a   charm   it 

**  has  in  its  strange  blue-and-white  head-dress,  its 
coloured  cloak,  its  plain,  flat  ground,  its  blue  tone! 
It  has  not  a  pronounced  blue  envelope,  but  you 
feel  that  blue  is  in  the  air,  in  the  shadows  of  the 
face,  in  the  eyes,  around  the  neck,  and,  above  all, 
in  the  shadows  of  the  yellow  cloak.  There  is  some 
slight  dotting  on  the  blue  and  yellow,  but  it  is  in- 
effective. Yet,  here  once  more,  is  luminosity. 
How  light  the  flesh!  How  striking  the  illumina- 
tion! The  brush-work  is  flat,  the  outline  sharp 
but  true  and  most  attractive,  the  shadows  quite 
perfect,  the  colour  just  right.  Add  to  all  this 
technical  and  decorative  charm  the  loveliness  of 
the  type,  the  purity  of  the  mental  conception,  and 
you  have  an  astonishing  picture.  It  belongs  in  the 
same  class  as  the  portraits  at  Budapest  (No.  456) 
and  Brussels  (No.  665),  and  it  agrees  quite  perfectly 
with  the  Delft  landscape  in  another  room  (No.  92). 
It  has,  perhaps,  been  injured  by  some  repainting. 

625.   Allegorical    Subject.     After   the   Head    of    a 

Young  Girl  (No.  670)  and  the  View  of  Delft  (No. 
92),  this  picture  seems  absolutely  shocking  in  its 
hardness,  its  shine  and  glitter,  its  want  of  air,  its 
lack  of  good  colour.  How  could  the  same  painter 
do  all  three  pictures  when  this  third  picture  is 
so  different  in  handling,  so  different  in  point  of 
view,  and  so  absolutely  different  in  mental  con- 
ception? This  picture  is  by  the  painter  of  the 
alleged  Vermeer  (No.  2528)  at  Amsterdam,  and 
it  is  almost  as  airless  and  glassy  as  that.  Notice 
the  wooden  quality  of  the  figure,  the  dress  and  the 
knees  under  it,  the  hard  head,  the  shining  ball 
above,  the  glittering  cup  on  the  table,  the  glassy 
floor  of  tiles.     The  curtain  at  the  left  is  not  badly 


102  THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

drawn  but  is  extravagant  in  pattern  and  too 
prominent;  the  blue  is  not  without  quality  but  is 
not  true  in  value.  The  same  pointillisme  is  here 
shown  as  in  the  other  Vermeers,  but  hardly  in  the 
same  way.  The  dots  are  so  sharp  and  hard  in  light 
that  they  attract  attention.  They  appear  in  the 
lady's  eyes  and  teeth  as  well  as  in  her  pearls  and 
brooch  and  yellow  sleeve  bands.  And  where  is 
the  light  from  the  sky  or  window  that  we  associate 
with  Vermeer?  This  is  studio  light.  Look  at  the 
picture  on  the  wall,  and  its  drawing,  and  also  the 
drawing  of  the  chair.  This  is  by  a  pseudo-Vermeer 
or  else  Vermeer  himself  in  degeneracy.  It  may  be 
the  latter.  In  the  Czernin  Collection  is  a  some- 
what similar  picture,  probably  by  the  same  hand 
as  this,  but  infinitely  finer  and  better  in  every  way. 
A  tentative  assignment  of  the  various  pictures 
ascribed  to  Vermeer  in  the  European  galleries 
would  place  in  different  classes,  say: 

1.  The  portraits  at  Budapest  (No.  456),  at 
Brussels  (No.  665),  at  The  Hague  (No.  670),  pos- 
sibly the  figure  picture  at  Dresden  (No.  1335), 
though  this  is  doubtful,  and  the  fine  landscape 
here  at  The  Hague  (No.  92).  They  are  all  of 
similar  view,  workmanship,  and  quality. 

2.  In  another  but  closely  related  class  the  in- 
teriors with  small  figures,  such  as  the  Lady  with  the 
Pearls,  Berlin  (No.  912b),  the  Girl  at  the  Window, 
Dresden  (No.  1336),  the  Young  Woman,  and  the 
Cook,  at  Amsterdam  (Nos.  2527  and  2538a). 
These  are  of  high  quality  as  art,  but  a  little  different 
from  those  of  the  first  class,  though  probably  it  is 
a  variation  of  the  same  mind,  eye,  and  hand. 

3.  In  a  third  class  comes  a  series  of  hard,  airless 
pictures  with  spotty  high  lights,  glassy  textures, 


VOS,  MARTIN  DE  103 

and  some  bad  drawing.  In  this  third  class  belong 
the  Allegorical  Subject  here  at  The  Hague  (No. 
625);  the  Letter,  at  Amsterdam  (No.  2528);  the 
Spinnet  Players,  at  the  National  Gallery,  London 
(Nos.  1383  and  2568).  They  were  done  by  what 
may  be  called  a  pseudo-Vermeer,  or  Vermeer  him- 
self in  degeneracy.  They  seem  more  like  the  work 
of  an  imitator,  and  have  the  hardness  of  a  decadent 
Netscher  or  a  Hoogstraten.  See  the  Hoogstra- 
ten  at  Amsterdam  (No.  1256)  for  the  resemblance. 
4.  In  a  fourth  class  can  be  placed  certain  attrib- 
uted Vermeers,  such  as  the  Diana  here  at  The 
Hague  (No.  406),  which,  beautiful  picture  as  it  is, 
shows  no  trace  whatever  of  Vermeer.  Possibly 
the  Dresden  picture  (No.  1335)  belongs  in  this  class. 
It  seems  more  like  a  Fabritius  than  a  Vermeer. 

558.    Vlieger,  Simon  de.      Coast  of  Scheveningen.     In 

general  effect  this  is  a  good  shore  piece,  with  high 
heap  clouds  and  grey  water.  The  dunes  are  well 
suggested  and  the  colour  is  good.  One  of  De 
Vlieger's  best  efforts,  but  not  of  itself  great  paint- 
ing. It  is  rather  thinly  done,  and  its  drawing  is 
of  limited  range  and  quality. 

695.  Vos,  Cornelis  de.  Portrait  of  a  Lady.  A  pro- 
file showing  a  rather  fine  if  sad  face  done  with 
some  fairly  good  drawing.  The  costume  and  pearls 
are  elaborate  and  the  background  is  ornate  with 
flower  patterns.  Not  a  bad  piece  of  work,  but  one 
sees  Cornelis  de  Vos  better  elsewhere.  There  is 
some  doubt  about  the  attribution. 

249.  Vos,  Martin  de.  Moses  Showing  the  Tables  of 
the  Law.  A  large  picture  with  good  drawing  and 
colouring,  but  too  crowded  with  figures,  and  not 
large  enough  in  its  form  and  colour  masses  to  hold 


104  THE  HAGUE  MUSEUM 

together  as  a  unit.  Some  of  the  types  are  excel- 
lent. The  attribution  is  questionable.  It  gives 
little  hint  of  the  style  of  Martin  de  Vos. 

264.  Weyden,  Roger  van  der.  Descent  from  the 
Cross.  Its  authorship  is  queried  by  the  catalogue, 
but  in  any  event  the  picture  shows  good  feeling 
and  good  workmanship.  The  robes  are  well  done, 
as  in  the  kneeling  figure  at  the  right  or  the  one  hold- 
ing the  dead  Christ.  The  colour  and  landscape 
are  attractive.  For  a  long  time  attributed  to 
Memling.  It  has  Roger  behind  it  as  inspiration, 
whoever  may  have  done  the  actual  work,  though 
it  has  suggestions,  too,  of  Bouts  and  Van  der  Goes. 


INDEX  OF  PICTURES  BY  NUMBERS 


1.    Comelisz  van   Oostsa- 
nen. 
23.   Comelisz  van  Haarlem. 
32.   Dou. 
36.   Koninck,  S. 
42] 

43  >  Goltzius. 

44  J 
Govaerts. 


45 

511 
52] 


Heemskerck. 


Heyden,  Van  der. 

Heist,  Van  der. 

Keyser. 

Koninck,  P.  de. 

Lievens. 

Maes. 

Vermeer  of  Delft. 

Metsu. 

Mierevelt. 

Moro. 
Ravestejrn. 

Potter. 


Rembrandt. 


53. 

54. 

77. 

80. 

85. 

90. 

92. 

94. 
96-' 
100 
117. 
119. 
136 
137 
145 
146 
147 
149 
154. 
1671 

168  >  Steen. 

169  J 


Ruisdael,  J. 


1761 

177/ 

234. 

239 

240 

242 

249. 

250- 

253 

264. 

269 

270 

271 

275 

276 

277 

287 

288 

296. 

297. 

298. 

311. 

347. 

348. 

391. 

405. 

406. 

433. 

4591 

460] 

471. 

534. 

543. 


Terborch. 
Rubens. 

Dyck,  Anthony  van. 

Vos,  M.  de. 

>  Rubens. 

Weyden,  R.  van  der. 

Seisenegger. 
Holbein. 


Piero  di  Cosimo. 

Murillo. 
Spanish  School. 
Velasquez. 
Caliari,  C. 
Fogolino. 
Gossart. 
Begeyn. 
Hondecoeter. 
Vermeer  of  Delft. 
Netherland  School. 

Hals,  Frans. 

Velde,  W.  van  de. 
Ruisdael,  J.  van. 
Backer. 


105 


106 


INDEX 


551.  Goyen,  J.  van. 

556.  Rembrandt. 

558.  Vlieger. 

559.  Moro. 

560.  Rembrandt. 
562.  Brekelenkam. 

564.  Leyster. 

565.  Rembrandt. 

566.  Ruysdael,  S.  van. 

-gg  >  Heist,  Van  der. 

572-  1  . 

576    J- 

577] 

579  >  Rembrandt. 

584] 

595.    Memling. 

598.   Rembrandt. 

605.    Fabritius,  C. 

611.   Verbeecq. 

618.   Hals. 

621.   Rembrandt. 

623.   Hals,  Claes. 


Molenaer. 


625.  Vermeer  of  Delft. 

626.  Rembrandt. 

627.  Cuyp,  A. 
655.  Moreelse. 

657.  Sweerts. 

658.  Quast. 

670.  Vermeer  of  Delft. 

676.  Flinck. 

682.  Neer,  A.  van  der. 

685.  Rembrandt. 

689.  Keyser. 

695.  Vos,  C.  de. 

705.  Moreelse. 

707.  Rembrandt. 
7171 


Maes. 


718  r 

724.   Meer   of   Haarlem,    J. 

van  der. 

728.   Ruisdael,  J.  van. 

729  1 

^2Q  >  Mijn,  G.  van  der. 

737.   Gelder. 
739.   Bruyn. 


FRANS  HALS  MUSEUM 


NOTE  ON  THE  FRANS  HALS  MUSEUM 

One  goes  to  Haarlem  chiefly  to  see  the  pictures 
by  Frans  Hals.  He  can  be  studied  there  as  nowhere 
else.  There  are  other  pictures  in  the  gallery,  four  or 
five  hundred  of  them,  and  all  of  them  of  more  or  less 
local  interest  because  belonging  largely  to  the  Haarlem 
School;  but  Frans  Hals  leads,  and  is  the  drawing 
feature  of  the  Museum.  Here  the  painter's  career, 
almost  from  start  to  finish,  can  be  studied  in  a  series 
of  large  shooting-company  pictures  than  which  nothing 
could  be  more  brilliant,  more  astonishing,  more  won- 
derful. Hals  is  here  really  great  as  in  no  other  gal- 
lery of  Europe. 

The  other  pictures  in  the  gallery  should  be  closely 
looked  at,  for  there  are  works  by  Hals's  sons  and  pupils 
which  may  shed  some  light  on  the  origin  of  a  good 
many  small  Frans  Hals  pictures,  so-called,  in  other 
galleries.  The  fact  that  there  were  six  painters  in  the 
Hals  family  (not  including  Dirck)  and  five  sixths  of  the 
pictures  are  given  to  Frans  the  Elder  is  in  itself  sus- 
picious. Besides  the  Haarlem  School  there  are  a  St. 
Luke  Painting  the  Virgin,  a  Nativity,  and  a  Christ  in 
the  Praetorium,  by  Heemskerck,  all  of  them  of  great 
excellence  and  beauty.     The  student  should  also  look 

109 


no  NOTE  ON  THE  FRANS  HALS  MUSEUM 

at  the  Adam  and  Eve  by  Scorel,  the  pictures  by 
Grebber,  Pot,  Verspronck,  and  others. 

The  new  Museum  building,  opened  in  1913,  is  quiet, 
restful,  successful  in  every  way.  It  is  constructed 
with  an  open  interior  court,  from  which  an  excellent 
side-light  in  the  rooms  is  obtained.  This  side-light 
seems  to  suit  these  Dutch  pictures  very  well,  as  though 
they  had  been  painted  under  such  a  condition,  and  were 
well  adapted  to  it.  The  pictures  might  have  been 
done  for  the  building,  so  admirably  do  they  fit  it.  The 
rooms  are  small,  but  quite  large  enough  for  the  pic- 
tures, and  the  walls  are  not  crowded.  There  is  an 
attempt  to  gain  a  Dutch  setting,  or  atmosphere,  not 
only  by  building,  court,  wall,  and  light,  but  by  hang- 
ings, furniture,  and  colour  scheme.  It  is  happily  done 
and  very  successful. 

The  catalogue  is  little  more  than  a  descriptive  find- 
ing list,  but  is  perhaps  sufficient  for  the  needs  of  the 
Museum.  There  are  photographic  reproductions  of 
the  pictures  in  book  form,  published  by  Hanfstaengl. 
The  trip  to  Haarlem  is  only  half  an  hour  by  train  from 
Amsterdam,  and  no  student  should  fail  to  go  there. 


FRANS  HALS  MUSEUM 

36  1  Bray,  Jan  de.     Regents  of  the  Children's  Home. 

37  J  These  two  portrait  groups,  with  a  Hals  hanging 

between  them,  show  thin  and  weak,  and  yet  in 
reaUty  they  are  not  badly  done.  They  follow  Hals 
in  his  late  style  and  are  grey  in  tone  and  a  little 
chalky.     See  also  Nos.  38  and  39. 

47.  Brouwer,  Adriaen.  Interior  of  an  Inn.  Good 
in  colour  if  a  little  messy  in  painting.  One  fails 
to  see  any  strong  indication  of  Brouwer  in  it, 
although  he  may  have  painted  it.  Brouwer  was 
a  pupil  of  Hals,  with  an  influence  upon  Hals's  son 
Harmon,  and  others  of  the  school. 

54.  Cornelisz  van  Haarlem,  Cornells.  Officers  of 
an  Archer  Corps.  This  is  better  than  the  smaller 
work  by  this  painter,  but  is  still  a  little  weak  and 
not  well  composed. 

55.    Adam  and  Eve.     It  is  soft  in  modelling  but 

graceful  work,  nevertheless.  Nos.  58  and  53,  by 
the  same  hand,  are  less  interesting. 

377.  Dutch  School.  The  Vintage.  The  catalogue 
suggests  Csesar  van  Everdingen  as  the  painter  of 
this  picture,  but  is  it  not  by  Paulus  Bor,  the  painter 
who  did  the  Moses  Saved  from  the  Nile  (No.  567) 
in  the  Amsterdam  Museum? 

85.   Duyster,  Willem  Cornelisz.    Soldiers  in  Quar^ 
ters.   Slippery,  though  rather  clever  in  the  handling, 
111 


** 


112  FRANS  HALS  MUSEUM 

and  fairly  good  in  colour.  The  composition  is  little 
more  than  a  huddling  together  of  people  and  studio 
properties. 

113.  Grebber,  Frans  Pieterz.  Officers  of  an  Archer 
Corps.  It  fares  better  by  not  being  near  the  Hals 
pictures.  The  heads  are  somewhat  weak  and  the 
composition  not  at  all  cunning. 

122.  Hals,     Dirck.      Woman     Playing    a    Flute.     The 

drawing  is  indifferent,  the  colour  rather  good.  It 
was  probably  done  by  Judith  Leyster,  whose  type 
and  manner  are  here  apparent  in  the  long-drawn- 
out  figure. 

123.  Hals,  Frans.     Banquet  of  Officers  of  St.  George. 

In  the  painting  of  these  shooting-company  pictures, 
the  Dutch  made  their  greatest  effort  at  the  large 
historical  canvas.  They  never  undertook  church 
and  ceiling  decoration  in  the  Italian  sense,  never 
understood  composition  as  space  filling  on  a  large 
scale.  Dutch  art  was  essentially  a  portrait  of  the 
land  and  the  people,  the  manners  and  customs, 
the  houses,  cattle,  and  polders.  The  shooting- 
company  picture  was  their  largest  canvas,  but  this 
again  was  only  the  portrait  numerically  increased 
— a  group  of  portraits.  The  very  nature  of  it 
made  it  difficult  to  hold  together.  The  characters 
inevitably  posed,  or  stood  aloof,  or  became  con- 
strained in  attitude.  Look  at  the  scores  of  in- 
stances of  this  in  the  many  regent  and  syndic 
pictures  in  the  Amsterdam  Museum  or  here  at 
Haarlem.  Rembrandt,  in  the  Night  Watch,  was 
about  the  only  one  who  made  a  real  picture  out  of 
his  sixteen  portraits.  Hals  approaches  him,  is 
next  to  him,  is  at  times  almost  equal  to  him,  in 
the  notable  series  of  pictures  in  this  gallery.     They 


HALS,  FRANS  113 

are  his  most  celebrated  works  and  should  be  studied 
seriously  and  at  length. 

This  picture  (No.  123)  was  done  in  1616  and  is 
the  earliest  of  the  famous  series.  The  painter  was 
thirty-two  years  old  when  he  painted  it,  and  had 
already  much  power  in  drawing  and  modelling, 
with  considerable  facility  in  handling  the  brush. 
The  hands,  occasionally,  seem  carelessly  done. 
This  is  equally  true  of  some  of  the  heads,  the  second 
man  at  the  right,  for  instance.  But  most  of  the 
heads  are  very  forceful,  as,  for  examples,  those 
of  the  bald-headed  man  under  the  flag,  the  man  to 
the  left  of  him,  and  also  the  flag-bearer.  The 
handling  in  the  ruffs,  sleeves,  and  sashes  is,  for  the 
most  part,  very  effective.  The  still-life  on  the 
table  is  excellent,  though  dark  in  its  illumination. 
The  setting  of  the  room  as  regards  its  atmosphere 
is  quite  right,  the  light  is  arbitrary  and  emanates 
directly  from  the  figures,  the  colour  is  variegated, 
brilliant,  splendid.  The  whole  group  is  well  held 
together,  and  in  this  the  flag-bearer  and  the  diagonal 
flag  play  a  part.  They  lift  the  composition  in  the 
centre,  which  is  supported,  pyramid  fashion,  by 
the  sides.  The  flag  also  serves  to  centralise  the 
light  and  colour.  What  superb  colour!  What 
quality  in  the  reds,  and,  better  still,  what  fine 
quality  in  the  warm  whites!  Here  at  the  very  start 
Hals  has  made  not  only  a  series  of  excellent  por- 
traits but  a  picture  of  much  beauty  and  power. 
It  is  a  noble  early  work  and  should  not  be  passed 
over  in  favour  of  the  later  work,  however  fine  the 
latter  may  be.  Hals  in  this  series  is  seen  from  his 
thirty-second  to  his  eightieth  year,  and  he  should 
be  studied  from  start  to  finish.  The  student  would 
do  well  to  read  Fromentin    {Old  Masters  of  Bel-- 


♦ 


114  FRANS  HALS  MUSEUM 

gium  and  Holland)  on  these  pictures.  In  the 
new  museum  this  picture  is  placed  in  the  room  with 
No.  125. 

124.    Banquet  of  Officers  of  St.  George.     This  group 

was  painted  in  1627,  when  Hals  was  forty-three. 
It  is  less  formal  in  lighting  than  No.  123,  not  so 
marked  in  shadows,  a  little  gayer  in  the  scheme  of 
colour,  and  somewhat  more  fluent  in  handling,  as 
one  may  see  by  comparing  in  the  two  pictures  such 
features  as  the  hair,  the  ruffs,  the  sashes.  There 
is,  however,  a  distinct  difference  between  the  right 
and  left  sides  of  this  picture,  so  far  as  the  handling 
goes.  The  right  side  is  carefully  done  in  faces, 
hands,  sashes,  sleeves  compared  with  the  left  side. 
The  four  figures  at  the  left  show  looser,  freer  brush- 
work,  as  though  Hals  had  perhaps  done  it  later  or 
it  had  been  worked  upon  by  some  pupil.  This 
latter  thought  is  thrust  upon  one  by  the  loosely 
handled  but  badly  done  curtain  at  the  back,  which 
looks  as  though  it  had  been  painted  in  that  careless 
way  originally  by  some  pupil.  The  picture  lacks 
in  unity — oneness  of  effect — though  there  was  an 
attempt  to  unite  the  group  by  the  flag,  as  in  No. 
123.  The  painter,  by  the  diagonal  lines  of  the 
three  flags  and  the  curtain,  wished  to  create  the 
effect  of  movement  from  right  to  left,  of  the  com- 
pany coming  in  at  the  door  at  the  right  and  gradu- 
ally filling  the  room.  The  large  flag  again  creates 
a  centre  of  light  and  colour.  Some  of  the  heads 
at  the  right  are  excellent.  What  wonderful  heads 
they  are!  And,  taking  the  figures  individually, 
what  wonderful  epitomes  of  Dutch  burgher  life  in 
the  early  seventeenth  century!  They  are  not  very 
intellectual,  but  what  physical  specimens,  what 
swashbucklers,    what   carousers!     And   what  pic- 


* 


HALS,  FRANS  115 

torial  stuff,  withal!  Painters  to-day  array  models 
for  this  effect,  but  in  Hals's  time  they  came  to  him 
ready  costumed.  The  picture  is  in  a  room  by  it- 
self in  the  new  museum. 

125.    Banquet   of   the    Officers  of  St.  Andrew.     In 

the  same  style  as  the  right  half  of  No.  124,  and 
possibly  it  was  done  a  little  earlier  than  the  ac- 
cepted date  of  1627.  The  heads  seem  smaller  in 
size  than  in  No.  124  knd  have  considerable  pre- 
cision of  drawing  for  Hals.  They  are  apparently 
a  little  pinched  in  the  drawing,  especially  about  the 
eyes,  but  are  full  of  life,  character,  spirit.  The 
hands  are  individual  and  belong  to  the  bodies. 
The  light  is  less  arbitrary  and  more  uniform  in  its 
diffusion  than  in  No.  124,  as  though  coming  not  so 
much  from  the  figures  themselves  as  from  the  win- 
dows. There  is  much  variety  in  the  colour,  and 
the  hues  have  depth  and  resonance,  though  lighter 
than  those  of  either  No.  123  or  124.  The  value  of 
the  tones  is  well  preserved,  so  there  is  harmony. 
The  set-in  of  the  figures  is  not  too  marked,  and 
the  atmosphere  of  the  room  not  very  noticeable. 
Moreover,  the  grouping  of  the  picture,  and  the  at- 
tempt to  give  an  unconscious  air  to  each  individual 
is  just  a  little  strained.  The  characters  pose,  they 
stand  or  sit  or  bend  over  for  uniqueness  of  position, 
and,  as  a  result,  the  interest  of  the  group  is  not 
centralised  and  the  picture  seems  not  well  held 
together.  Hals  rather  sacrificed  the  centre  and 
built  up  the  sides  in  figures,  light,  and  colours. 
There  is  a  dip  in  the  middle,  and  the  two  groups 
of  figures  take  impetus  away  from  each  other,  some 
turning  their  backs  on  their  fellows.  This  harms 
the  unity  of  the  picture  and  is  unfortunate.  It  is 
likely  that  Hals  was  helped  in  the  picture  by  pupils. 


** 


116  FRANS  HALS  MUSEUM 

One  seems  to  feel  the  presence  of  more  than  one 
hand.  Notice  the  pale  coats-of-arms  on  the  win- 
dows at  back,  how  well  they  keep  their  place  and 
yet  are  effective  as  part  of  the  history  of  the  group. 
In  the  room  with  No.  123. 

126.    Reunion  of  the  Officers  of  St,  Andrew.     Done 

in  1633,  when  Hals  was  forty-nine.  It  is  supposed 
to  be  an  open-air  scene,  and  yet  there  is  appar- 
ently a  reversion  to  the  style  of  No.  123  as  regards 
the  lighting.  The  effect  is  not  that  of  sunlight 
but  the  arbitrary  illumination  of  individual  heads 
by  studio  light,  as  in  single  portraits.  The  shad- 
owed background  is  quite  as  dark  as  in  No.  123, 
while  the  colour  is  a  shade  lighter  in  the  flags  and 
costumes.  The  grouping  is  less  formal  and  more 
effective.  Hals  is  still  experimenting  in  the  ar- 
rangement of  his  figures,  and  now  draws  the  eye 
to  the  centre  by  the  figure  in  blue  and  buff,  and 
surmounts  that  centre  by  a  flag  and  three  hal- 
berds. He  then  allows  the  eye  to  wander  to  the 
left,  where  there  is  a  bright  flag  and  a  halberd  head, 
and  under  them  a  fine  character  in  a  black  hat 
and  dress  with  a  blue-and-red  sash.  Then  the 
eye  goes  to  the  right,  caught  by  another  shining 
halberd  head  and  a  patch  of  light  sky  and  be- 
neath them  seated  figures.  Perhaps  the  right 
side  is  a  little  empty  and  breaks  down,  or  rather 
does  not  hold  up  to  the  centre  or  the  left  in  mass, 
in  light,  in  colour.  The  drawing  of  the  heads  and 
hands  is  quite  absolute  and  done  with  care,  knowl- 
edge, skill.  The  handling  is  free  but  not  lacking 
in  directness  of  effect  or  certainty  of  touch.  Hals 
is  here  at  his  height  of  power,  and  is  almost  above 
criticism  or  reproach.  Notice  the  head  of  the  man 
holding  the  pen  in  his  hand  and,  for  facility  of 


* 


HALS,  FRANS  117 

handling,  the  knot  of  the  blue  sash  to  the  left  of 
him.  The  sword-hilts  and  halberd  heads  are  bril- 
liant touches  of  light,  here  and  there  enlivening 
the  surface.  Notice  further  the  splendid  colour 
here,  there,  and  everywhere,  and  especially  the 
blaze  of  colour  in  the  man  at  the  extreme  right. 
Merely  as  unrelated  bits,  what  quality  these  vari- 
ous colours  have!  The  whole  picture  is  superb  in 
characterisation,  in  its  expression  of  the  individu- 
ality of  the  painter,  as  form  and  colour,  as  a  mere 
decorative  map  on  the  wall.  Taking  it  for  all  in 
all,  Hals  never  excelled  it.  It  puts  him  in  the  class 
with  Velasquez.  In  a  room  by  itself  in  the  new 
museum. 

127.    Officers     and    Under  officers    of    St,    George, 

Hals  was  fifty-five  when,  in  1639,  he  did  this  pic- 
ture. The  composition  is  more  formal  and  less 
forceful  than  any  of  the  others.  It  is  a  proces- 
sional composition,  with  a  second  tier  of  figures 
back  of  the  first  row,  and  a  third  tier  placed  on 
the  steps  at  the  left.  The  scene  is  out  of  doors, 
and  is  half-way  between  plein-air  and  studio  light. 
The  distribution  of  light  is  not  uniform,  and  the 
different  heads  are  apparently  not  all  in  the  same 
key.  At  the  right  the  figure  numbered  "5"  and 
the  one  in  the  front  row  to  the  right  of  it  are 
higher  in  light  than  any  others  in  the  picture. 
This  is  not  due  to  restoration  or  cleaning,  but  prob- 
ably to  the  heads  having  been  put  in  at  a  different 
time  from  the  others,  or  to  the  carelessness  of  the 
painter.  For  Hals  in  this  picture  shows  he  is 
growing  careless.  He  handles  with  great  freedom, 
but  occasionally  misses  his  drawing.  His  colour 
is  now  more  sombre  and,  while  not  lacking  in 
quality,  is  gaining  in  a  grey  tone.    The  heads  are 


118  FRANS  HALS  MUSEUM 

of  uneven  merit,  those  in  the  second  row  being 
not  only  subordinated,  but  sacrificed,  and  those 
in  the  third  row,  especially  at  the  left,  seem  to 
have  been  hurriedly  passed  over.  The  lower  parts 
of  the  figures  in  front  are  merely  suggested.  The 
composition  again  is  not  good,  the  men  and  hal- 
berds being  distributed  and  crossed  too  much  for 
any  effective  unity,  and  the  landscape  at  the  right 
not  holding  up  with  sufficient  force  to  balance  the 
high  figures  at  the  left.  Hals  (it  may  be  his  assis- 
tant) is  here  developing  an  impatient  way  of  slash- 
ing in  angular  lines  with  the  brush. .  It  is  notice- 
able in  the  breeches  of  the  man  with  the  blue  sash 
in  the  centre;  in  the  ruff  of  the  man  with  the  red 
sash  in  the  centre;  in  the  shadows  of  the  sleeves 
and  sashes  at  the  sides.  This  is  the  least  interest- 
ing picture  of  the  series.  It  was  probably  worked 
upon  by  pupils.  The  figure  numbered  19,  at  the 
back,  is  supposed  to  be  Hals  himself.  In  a  room 
with  No.  128. 

128.    Regents    of    the    Hospital    of    St.    Elizabeth. 

**  Painted  in  1641,  when  Hals  was  fifty-seven.  It 
is  an  interior  scene  and  the  most  harmonious  in 
lighting  of  any  of  the  series  thus  far  examined. 
It  has  setting  and  atmosphere,  and  if  it  is  sombre 
in  blacks,  greys,  and  browns  it  has  a  beautiful 
quality  of  tone  all  through.  It  is  a  striking  piece 
in  its  unity  under  one  light,  every  note  being  in 
absolutely  correct  relation  to  every  other  note, 
and  the  whole  being  exactly  right  in  value,  with 
the  possible  exception  of  the  left  hand  on  the  near 
edge  of  the  table,  which  may  be  a  trifle  too  high  in 
key,  though  in  perfect  relation  to  its  corresponding 
head.  The  handling  is  free  but  not  careless, 
though  the  drawing  of  the  hands  is  occasionally 


HALS,  FRANS  119 

wanting;  but  in  the  main  the  picture  is  right  and 
perfect  of  its  kind.  Notice  now  not  only  the  air 
of  the  room  but  the  drawing  of  the  room,  the  tone 
of  the  wall,  the  placing  of  the  map,  the  superb 
quality  of  the  whites,  the  even  more  superb  quality 
of  the  blacks.  Notice  also  the  wonderful — the 
really  wonderful — drawing,  placing,  and  grouping 
of  the  black  hats.  Let  your  eye  travel  over  the 
tops  of  the  hats,  over  the  whole  group,  and  you 
then  get  the  easy  undulation  of  the  composition. 
The  figures  were  put  in  in  that  easy  flowing  man- 
ner— first  the  three  at  the  left  and  back,  and  then 
the  two  at  the  right  to  balance  them.  They  seem 
to  have  been  floated  into  place  without  any  jar 
or  friction.  Finally,  will  you  notice  that  Hals 
seems  to  have  outlived  his  swashbuckler  days,  that 
he  is  now  sober  and  dignified,  and  that  he  is  doing 
dignified,  intellectual,  sympathetic  men — people 
who  have  true  humanity  and  feeling  about  them. 
It  is  a  great  picture.  One  may  say  of  it,  as  of  No. 
126,  that  Hals  never  went  beyond  it — perhaps 
never  equalled  it  again  except,  possibly,  in  the  last 
picture  of  the  series.  No.  130.  It  provokes  a  con- 
trast with  Rembrandt's  Five  Syndics,  and  makes 
even  that  great  work  seem  less  marvellous.  In  a 
room  with  No.  127. 

129.    Men  Regents    of  the  Hospital  for    the  Aged, 

Done  in  1664,  when  Hals  was  eighty  and  his  hand 
and  eye  had  both  become  enfeebled.  He  could 
no  longer  draw  with  accuracy  and  slurred  heads, 
hands,  hats,  gloves,  and  collars.  He  seems  almost 
to  have  given  over  colour  and  to  have  thrown 
his  remaining  strength  into  a  grey  tone,  pervading 
a  dark  shadowed  envelope,  from  which  the  figures 
seem  to  emerge  half  mysteriously.     The  composi- 


* 


120  FRANS  HALS  MUSEUM 

tion  lacks  in  grouping.  The  three  figures  at  the 
left  are  in  the  form  of  an  arch,  and  the  one  with 
his  back  to  the  table  is  relied  upon  as  a  sort  of 
keystone  to  unite  the  first  arch  with  a  higher  arch 
of  figures  at  the  right.  The  figures  are  related 
only  by  being  in  the  same  room,  the  same  atmos- 
phere, the  same  tone.  They  have  no  interest  or 
common  aim  and  seem  to  have  been  put  in  sepa- 
rately, one  at  a  time.  The  characters  have  seri- 
ousness, but  they  are  indifferently  drawn,  ineffec- 
tually placed,  and  faulty  in  value.  Moreover, 
their  hands  seem  too  much  in  evidence.  The  man 
at  the  back  standing  up  is  a  poor  apology  for  a 
figure,  while  the  man  at  the  right  is  too  high  in 
key,  and  the  red  at  the  knee  is  false  in  value. 
What  is  really  fine  here  is  the  quality  of  the  blacks 
and  the  grey  ground.  Evidently  Hals  is  in  decay, 
but  he  is  still  possessed  of  a  remarkable  sense  and 
feeling  for  air  and  envelope,  though  he  does  not  in 
every  case  succeed  in  attaining  them.  Too  highly 
varnished.     In  a  room  with  No.  130. 

130.    Lady  Regents  of  the  Hospital  for  the  Aged. 

This  picture  was  done  in  the  same  year  as  No.  129. 
It  shows  the  painter's  age  in  the  heaviness  of  the 
touch  and  the  uncertainty  of  the  drawing.  These 
shortcomings  are  noticeable  not  only  in  the  heads 
and  ruffs  but  in  the  hands,  which  are  true  only  in 
their  lighting,  and  as  spots  of  colour.  The  colour 
has  become  a  grey,  or  perhaps  nearer  to  a  black 
and  white,  with  small  patches  of  flesh  colour  in  the 
faces  and  hands.  Hals  has  lost  much  of  his  dash, 
and  almost  all  of  his  hue,  but  he  has  certainly 
gained  in  envelope  and  tone — gained  even  upon 
No.  128.  The  lighting  is  arbitrary  and  not  true 
even  to  interior  light,  but  the  tone  of  grey  and  the 


** 


HALS,  FRANS  121 

atmospheric  setting  are  quite  perfect.  The  com- 
position is  a  simple  but  pleasant  arrangement — the 
figures  rising  around  the  table  gradually  from  the 
left  and  being  reinforced  by  an  extra  figure  at  the 
right.  It  is  restful,  even  though  at  first  you  hardly 
feel  the  presence  of  the  table.  This  is  a  picture 
that  painters  rave  over,  following  Fromentin,  and 
think  the  best  of  the  series  because  of  its  envelope; 
but  it  hardly  goes  beyond  No.  128  in  its  general 
truth,  charm,  and  force.  The  wonder  is  that  the 
man  of  eighty  preserved  such  an  unerring  instinct 
for  tone,  such  a  true  eye,  when  his  hand  had  failed 
him  so  signally.  For  this  hand  failure,  notice  the 
black  bows  on  the  white  ruffs  and  again  the  heads 
and  the  hands.  The  landscape  on  the  wall  at  the 
back  is  superb,  but  it  cuts  through  the  wall  like  a 
real  landscape  seen  through  a  window — so  absolute 
is  it  in  its  tone.  That  word  tone  explains^  the  pic- 
ture— explains  its  fine  decorative  quality  and  its 
restful  feeling.     In  a  room  with  No.  129.  i 

131  1  Portraits  of  Nicolas  van   der  Meer  and  Wife. 

132  J  These    portraits,    painted    in    1631,    look    rather 
*      formal  after  the  splendid   series  of  Officers  and 

Regents  pictures  by  Hals  in  the  same  museum,  yet 
they  do  not  show  Hals  either  better  or  worse  than 
he  is  seen  elsewhere  in  European  galleries.  The 
man,  though  he  has  a  pinched  look  in  the  eyes,  has 
a  fine  forehead,  beard,  and  cheeks,  has  bulk  of 
body,  strong  hands,  and  stands  well.  The  chair 
advances  a  little  too  much  and  the  coat-of-arms 
will  not  recede  sufficiently.  The  lady's  face  is  pal- 
lid and  the  ruff  is  a  little  high  in  light,  as  is  also  the 
head-dress.  Her  hands  seem  massive  and  mas- 
culine. Not  the  best  work  of  Hals,  but  perhaps 
if  we  saw  these   portraits  in  any  other  gallery 


122  FRANS  HALS  MUSEUM 

than  here  in  Haarlem  we  might  think  differently. 
They  certainly  have  dignity  and  repose. 

138.  Hals,  Frans,  the  Younger.  Interior.  This  is 
poor  enough  work  for  a  seventeenth-century  Dutch- 
man and  a  son  and  pupil  of  Frans  Hals  at  that. 
It  is  neither  well  drawn  nor  well  painted.  Nor 
is  No.  136,  near  at  hand,  put  down  to  Johannes 
Hals,  of  any  better  quality. 

134.  Hals,  Harman.  Pleasant  Company,  A  picture 
more  in  the  style  of  Brouwer  than  in  the  style 
of  the  painter's  father,  Frans  Hals.  Well  enough 
painted,  but  the  under-structure  is  not  understood, 
as,  for  instance,  in  the  heads. 

139.  Hals,  Reynier.  Child  Eating.  The  picture  has 
been  much  repainted  and  is  now  not  very  intelligent, 
but  still  suggests  that  Hals's  sons  and  pupils  may 
have  done  many  of  the  pictures  in  European  gal- 
leries that  are  now  attributed  to  the  elder  painter. 

150.  Heemskerck,  Maerten  van  (Veen).  St.  Luke 
*  Painting  the  Virgin.  This  painter  was  a  little 
eccentric  in  drawing  and  colouring,  even  before 
he  became  a  mannerist  after  the  Italians;  but 
his  mannerisms  are  not  the  less  attractive,  as  in 
a  different  way  are  those  of  II  Greco.  The  Ma- 
donna is  lofty  in  type  and  superb  in  colour.  What 
splendid  variegated  colour,  harmonious  because 
perfectly  lighted  I  The  angel  at  the  right  is  drawn 
out  in  figure  but  is  beautiful  in  line  and  colour. 
The  St.  Luke  again  is  coarse,  almost  violent  in 
the  drawing,  but  what  strength !  This  picture  may 
show  the  painter's  native  leaning,  for  it  was  painted 
in  1532  and  probably  before  he  went  to  Italy.  It 
should  be  studied.     Not  all  the  sixteenth-century 


HEEMSKERCK  123 

Italianised  Netherlanders  are  to  be  passed  in  si- 
lence because  they  forsook  their  native  creed  for 
strange  gods  in  Italy. 

151.   The  Nativity,     As  odd  a  Nativity  as  was  ever 

*  painted.  It  is  a  formal  arrangement  of  heads  in 
an  arch  composition.  Notice  the  drawn-out,  yel- 
low-robed angel  and  the  strong,  Egyptian-looking 
type  at  the  extreme  right  with  head-dress  and  ex- 
tended arms.  How  superb,  these  figures,  for  all 
the  oddity  of  the  general  conception!  And  what 
fine  colour! 

155.    Christ  in  the  Prcetorium.     A  triptych.     The 

**  tragic  nature  and  quality  of  it  are  apparent,  even  to 
distortion.  The  drawing  is  positive  and  angular, 
insistent  upon  bone,  muscle,  and  tendon;  the  col- 
our is  very  good,  and  the  robes  are  effective  in 
light  and  shade — as  notice  in  the  boy  at  the  right. 
The  donors  on  the  wings  are  fine,  especially  in  the 
hands,  faces,  and  robes  of  the  women  at  the  right 
and  their  patron  saint  above  them.  The  men 
donors  seem  less  interesting.  On  the  outside  of  the 
right  shutter,  Daniel  is  shown  with  great  dignity 
and  a  majestic  sweep  of  robe.  The  feet  and  hands 
are  well  drawn,  even  powerful,  but  they  are  awk- 
ward. The  lion  at  the  left,  with  a  semi-human 
expression  of  countenance,  adds  a  grotesque  note 
as  a  foil.  The  Ezekiel  on  the  outside  of  the  oppo- 
site shutter  is  as  majestic  as  a  Donatello,  with 
robes  superb  in  their  light,  shade,  and  colour. 
How  large  and  fine  the  figure,  and  how  well  it 
stands !  It  is  patriarchal,  prophetic.  The  Italians 
never  went  beyond  it.  The  head  is  truly  noble, 
and  the  scarf  about  it  is  a  wonderful  note  of  colour. 
These  two  figures  alone  are  enough  to  make  Heems- 


124  FRANS  HALS  MUSEUM 

kerck  famous.  Painted  after  the  visit  to  Italy, 
when  under  Michelangelo's  influence. 

211.  Mierevelt,  Michiel  Jansz.  Portrait  of  M.  Gilles 
de  Glarges.  A  better  portrait  than  we  usually  see 
under  Mierevelt's  name,  and  of  better  report  just 
here,  perhaps  because  of  its  poor  surrounding  por- 
traits. 

234.    Pietersz,    Pieter.      The  Three   Hebrew   Children. 

One  has  no  difficulty  in  recognising  here  some 
strong  drawing,  some  fine  types,  good  movement, 
and  action.  At  first  one  sees  in  it  the  hand  of 
Aertsen — the  painter  of  vegetables  and  peasants — 
but  it  is  Aertsen  at  second  hand  in  the  work  of  his 
son.  It  is  a  capital  piece  of  work  and,  like  every- 
thing coming  from  the  Aertsen-Beuckelaer  circle, 
is  entitled  to  serious  consideration.  They  were  all 
excellent  workmen. 

239.    Pot,  Hendrik   Gerritsz.     Officers  of  the  Corps 

of  Archers  of  St.  Adriaen.  This  picture  is  possi- 
bly much  repainted,  though  chalky  originally.  It 
still  shows  reminiscences  of  Hals,  the  painter's 
master.  Compare  it  with  Hals  (Nos.  123-125). 
The  Grebbers  (Nos.  112  and  114)  are  worth  looking 
at  to  see  how  others  besides  Hals  and  Rembrandt 
put  these  portrait  groups  together. 

256  \  Ruisdael,  Jacob  van.     Landscapes.     Of  small  di- 

257  i  mensions  and  sketchily  done,  the  No.  256  being 

the  better  of  the  two. 

264.  Scorel,  Jan  van.  Adam  and  Eve.  Harsh  but 
heroic  figures,  sharp  in  outline  drawing  but  with 
much  force  and  beauty.  The  modelling  has  been 
hurt  by  cleaning  and  restoration.  The  landscape 
is  very  simple  in  its  suggestion  of  large  planes. 


VERSPRONCK  125 

265.   Baptism  of  Christ.     It  is  good  in  its  drawing, 

as  notice  the  three  figures  at  the  right  of  the  tree 
and  the  two  women  balancing  them  at  the  left. 
The  light  upon  the  figures  is  too  high,  and  produces 
a  chalky  effect,  and  the  landscape  (in  the  moun- 
tains) is  fantastic.  Not  a  good  example  of  Scorel. 
The  attribution  of  this  picture  (also  of  No.  264) 
has  been  questioned.     See  also  No.  263. 

31.  Terborch,  Gerard.  Portraits  of  Colenbergh 
Family.  A  picture  of  indifferent  painting  and 
drawing  by  some  pupil  or  imitator  of  Terborch. 
Notice  the  hard  drawing  of  the  chair  and  the 
"jumpy"  nature  of  the  coats-of-arms  on  the  wall. 
It  pretends  to  more  than  it  fulfils. 

286 1  Verspronck,    Jan    Cornells.     The    Colenbergh 

287  J  Portraits.  They  are  neither  very  bad  nor  yet  very 
good.  They  suggest  a  man  who  may  have  done 
a  number  of  smooth  pictures  now  listed  under  the 
name  of  Frans  Hals.  The  large  portrait  group 
(No.  288)  gives  his  measure  fairly  well. 


INDEX  OF  PICTURES  BY  NUMBERS 


31. 

36 

37 

47. 

54 

55 

85. 

113. 

122. 

123- 

132 

134. 

138. 


Terborch. 
Bray. 

Brouwer. 

Comelisz  van  Haarlem. 

Duyster. 
Grebber. 
Hals,  Dirck. 

>  Hals,  Frans. 

Hals,  Harman. 
Hals  the  Younger, 
Frans. 


139. 
150 
151 
155 
211. 
234. 
239. 
256 
257 
264 
265 
286 
287 
377. 


Hals,  R. 

Heemskerck. 

Mierevelt. 
Pietersz,  P. 
Pot. 

Ruisdael,  J. 

Scorel. 

Verspronck. 
Dutch  School. 


127 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY, 
BERKELEY 

THIS  BOOK  IS  DTJ^N  THE  I^ST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  dme  are  Bubjec^t  'o  ^a^  fine,  o* 
50c  per  volume  after  the  thud  aay               ^^^^^  ,„ 

*rem*ln"d°rarbe  -eqK»eation  is  made  before 
eyniration  of  loan  period.  " 


QEC 


171928 


18Jafi'49/5  * 

UBRARY  USE 

APR    9  1970 


FEB  15 1975  Ip 


OCT  3    Ov'7^ 


3* 


50rn-7,'27 


A'^v^f 


393593 

IX)  c- 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  UBRARV  i 


